SECESSION": 


CONSIDERED  AS 


A  RIGHT  IN  THE   STATES 


COMPOSING 

I 


'it 

AND  AS  TO  THE  GROUNDS  OF 

JUSTIFICATION  OF  THE  SOUTHERN  STATES 


EXERCISING  THE   RIGHT. 

■ 


BY  A  GENTLEMAN  OF  MISSISSIPPI. 


JACKSON,    MISS. 

SOUTH-WESTERN    CONFEDERATE    PRINTING    HOUSE, 
1863. 


K 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2012  with  funding  from 

University  of  North  Carolina  at  Chapel  Hill 


http://archive.org/details/secessionconsideOOgent 


SECESSIO 


To  the  patriot,  who  maintains  the  justice  of  the  separation  of 
the  Confederate  States  from  the  United  States,  it  is  ot  vital 
importance  to  feel  assured  that  the  right  of  a  State  to  secede  from 
the  Union  with  the  United  States,  whenever  she  thought  fit  to 
exercise  it,  '"was  perfect  and  absolute,  beyond  the  power  ol  denial 
or  molestation  from  any  source. 

Upon  this,  mainly  depends,  the  questions,  what  political  relations 
subsist  between  the  seceded  States  and  the  remaining  United 
States  ;  and  whether  the  citizens  of  such  States,  in  defending 
themselves  by  arms  against  the  invasion  of  the  United  States,  set 
on  foot  to  enforce  the  laws  of  the  United  States  over  such  States, 
after  secession,  are  to  be  regarded  as  traitors  and  rebels,  on  the 
one  hand,  or  as  absolved  from  all  political  connection  with  the 
United  States,  and  acting  in  the  defense  of  their  legitimate  rights, 
on  the  other. 

If  the  secession  be  without  right,  the  position  of  the  people  of 
a  State  resisting  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  is  that  of 
rebellion  against  legitimate  power,  and  the  armed  resistants  are 
traitors  and  felons  ;  but  if  it  be  rightful  and  in  the  exercise  of  the 
legitimate  powers  of  the  State,  then,  the  attempt  at  coercion  by 
invasion  and  making  war  against  the  State,  is  a  usurpation  and  an 
outrage  which  the  State  is  bound  to  repel,  as  an  attempt  to  destroy 
her  rights  and  liberties  by  mere  brute  force.  Lt  is,  therefore,  a 
question  which  must  most  seriously  impress  every  true  patriot  and 
every  elevated  mind  in  the  South — had  the  State  the  right  to  secede 
in  her  sovereign  capacity,  for  reasons  which  she-  judged  sufficient 
to  demand  and  justify  her  secession  ? 

If  this  enquiry  be  resolved  in  the  affirmative,  it  becomes  import- 
ant^*).  consider,  whether  the  circumstances,  under  which  the  State 
thought  fit  to  exercise  the  right,  are  such  as  to  justify  her,  in  the 
estimation  of  mankind,  in  the  exercise  of  it. 

These  two  questions  will,  therefore,  form  the  subject  for  consid- 
eration in  these  remarks  ;  first,  whether  one  of  'the  States  consti- 
tuting the  United  States,  had  the  right  to  secede  from  the  Union  ; 
and,   secondly,    whether   the  circumstances  under  which  the  right 


was  exercised  by  the  Southern  States,  justify  its  exercise  and  acquit 
those  Southern  States  of  any  bad  faith  to  the  obligations  of  the 
Union. 

First — As  to  the  abstract  eight  op  secession. 

This  right  is  claimed  as  resulting,  from  the  rights  and  powers 
which  the  several  States  had  when  they  formed  the  Constitution  ; 
and  from  the  nature  and  purposes  of  the  Union  created  by  the 
Constitution,  as  shown  by  its  face  and  by  the  history  of  its  forma- 
tion and  adoption. 

1.  In  the  first  place,  each  State  was,  at  the  time  of  the  adoption 
of  the  Constitution,  a  sovereign  and  independent  State,  and  acted 
as  such  in  adopting  the  Constitution.  This  is  manifest — from  the 
Declaration  of  Independence,  which  proclaims  the  several  States 
to  be  "  free  and  independent  States  " — from  the  second  of  the 
Articles  o£  Confederation  of  1778,  which  declares  that  "each  State 
retains  its  sovereignty,  freedom  and  independence,  and  every  power, 
jurisdiction  and  right,  which  is  not  thereby  expressly  delegated  to 
the  United  States  " — from  the  treaty  of  peace  with  Great  Britain, 
after  the  close. of  the  war  of  the  revolution,  recognising  each 
State  by  name  as  a  "  free,  sovereign  and  independent  State  " — and 
finally,  by  the  sanction  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
in  the  early  history  of  the  Union,  in  the  case  of  Ware  vs.  Hylton, 
3d  Dallas'  Rep.,  199,  in  which  it  is  held  by  Judge  Chase,  that  the 
effect  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence  was  "  not  that  the  united 
colonies  jointly,  in  a  collective  capacity,  were  independent  States,  but 
that  each  State  of  them  was  a  sovereign  and  independent  State  " — a 
doctrine  recognised  by  numerous  subsequent  decisions  of  that 
Court. 

It  is  also  incontrovertibly  true,  that  each  State  for  herself,  in  her 
sovereign  political  capacity,  by  her  Legislature,  and  not  by  immedi- 
ate election  of  the  people,  appointed  delegates  to  the  Convention 
which  formed  the  Constitution — that  the  votes  given  in  the  Con- 
vention, in  its  formation,  were  given  by  States  and  not  per  capita  ; 
each  State  being  entitled  to  but  one  vote  upon  every  question, 
regardless  of  the  relative  number  of  delegates — and  finally,  each  #• 
State,  for  herself,  and  in  her  sovereign  capacity,  accepted,  ratified  <*• 
and  acceded  to  the  Constitution  ;  and  it  was  of  no  force  or  effect  fc 
upon  her,  until  so  ratified  and  acceded  to  by  her,  she  remaining,  •, 
meanwhile,  a  separate  sovereign  State,  to  all  intents  and  purposes. 

Notwithstanding  these  conclusive  facts,  incontestibly  establishing 
that  each  State  was  a  separate  sovereign  State,  before  the  adoption 
of  the  Constitution,  President  Lincoln,  in  his  message  of  July, 
1861,  boldly  declares  that  "no  one  of  them  was  ever  a  State  out 
of  the  Union,"  that  "  the  word  sovereignty  is  not  in  the  national 
Constitution,  nor,  as  is  believed,  in  any  of  the  State  Constitu- 
tions"— that   "  the  Union  is  older  than  any  of  the  States,  and,  in 

m 

Mr** 


*\ 


flA 


fact,  it  created  them  as  States."  This  last  is  said  with  reference  to 
the  Union  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation ;  which  he  considers 
in  some  Avay,  blended  with  the  Union  under  the  present  Constitu- 
tion. But  the  Union,  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  was 
entirety  abrogated  upon  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  by  the 
States  ;  each  State  acceded  to  the  Constitution  in  her  sovereign 
political  capacity,  as  is  above  shown,  and  thereby  established  a 
new  and  distinct  union  ;  the  States  refusing  to  adopt  it,  remaining 
free  and  independent  States,  absolved  from  the  old  union  and  totally 
disconnected  with  tha*!  formed  under  the  present  Constitution, 
until  they  acceded  to  the  latter.  Of  course,  the  rights  and  powers 
of  the  States,  as  members  of  the  Union,  can  only  be  affected  by  the 
Union  created  by  the  present  Constitution. 

Reckless  and  unfounded  as  are  these  asseverations,  the  position 
assumed  by  them  will  be  found,  after  a  careful  examination  of  the 
subject,  to  be  the  only  theory  upon  which  the  right  of  the  States 
to  interpose  their  sovereign  power  against  the  usurpations  of  the 
Federal  Government,  can  be  successfully  denied  ;  and  it  must  be 
considered,  from  the  imposing  authority  and  the  solemn  circum- 
stances under  which  it  is  put  forth,  as  having  been  taken  advisedly, 
as  the  ground  on  which  the  government  of  the  United  States  rests 
its  right  to  wage  a  war  of  subjugation  and  extermination  against 
the  people  of  the  Confederate  States,  for  attempting  to  resume 
their  original  status  of  separate,  sovereign  States,  in  all  respects. 
Yet,  it  is  so  utterly  unfounded  in  truth  and  *  in  history,  that  no 
further  answer  to  it  is  required  than  the  reference  to  the  historical 
facts  above  stated. 

Each  State,  then,  being  sovereign  when  she  ratified  the  Constitu- 
tion, must  have  continued  such  after  her  ratification,  except  so  far 
as  she  restricted  herself  of  her  sovereign  powers  by  the  Constitu- 
tion; unless  she  absolutely  surrendered  her  sovereignty.  And  here 
the  vital  question  arises,  did  the  States,  in  ratifying  the  Constitu- 
tion, part  with  the  sovereign  right  of  judging,  each  for  herself, 
whether  the  powers  conferred  on  the  Government  by  the  Consti- 
tution, or  the  rights  and  powers  retained  by  the^tates  had  been 
violated  ;  and  did  the  States  bind  themselves  to  an  indissoluble 
Union  ? 

2.  If  we  consider  the  purpose?  for  which  the  Constitution  was 
formed,  we  find  nothing  that  binds  the  States  to  a  Union,  irrevocable 
under  any  circumstances. 

These  purposes  are  stated  in  the  letter  of  the  Convention — ■ 
signed  by  Gen.  Washington,  accompanying  the  Constitution,  and 
which  was  submitted  to  the  Convention  of  the  several  States  with 
the  Constitution— -  to  be,  "  that' the  power  of  making  war,  peace  and 
treaties  ;  that  of  levying  money  and  regulating  commerce,  and  the 
correspondent  executive  and  judicial  authorities  shall  be  fully  and 


6 

effectually  vested  in  the  General  Government  of  the  Union."  The 
object  was  merely  to  supply  the  defects  existing  under  the  Articles 
of  Confederation,  in  these  respects;  to  entrust  the  necessary  powers, 
in  these  particulars,  to  a  general  head  ;  because  from  their  nature 
they  could  not  be  exercised  either  by  the  States  separately,  nor  by 
the  Union  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation.  This  was  done  in 
the  Constitution,  by  creating  a  government  to  execute  these  powers, 
delegating  them  fully  to  it,  prohibiting  to  the  States  all  counteract- 
ing powers,  and  clothing  the  Government  with  all  the  power,  legis- 
lative, executive  and  judicial,  necessary  to  fhe  complete  exercise  of 
the  powers  entrusted  to  it. 

But  these  powers  are  all  "  delegated,"  in  express  terms  ;  which 
shows  that  the  Federal  Government  was  intended  to  be  but  tlie 
agent  and  representative  of  the  States  ;  and  as  stated  by  Mr.  Madi- 
son, in  Federalist,  No.  45,  "  the  powers  delegated  to  the  Federal 
Government  are  few  and  defined.  Those  which  are  to  remain  to  the 
State  Governments  are  numerous  and  indefinite.  The  former  will  be 
exercised  principally  on  external  objects,  as  war,  peace,  negotia- 
tion and  foreign  commerce,  with  which  last  the  power  of  taxation 
will,  for  the  most  part,  be  connected.  The  powers  reserved  to  the 
several  States  will  extend  to  all  the  objects,  which,  in  the  ordinary  course 
of  affairs,  concern  the  lives,  liberty  and  properties  of  the  people,  and  the 
internal  order,  improvement  and  prosperity  of  the  Stated  It  was 
admitted  freely  by  the  advocates  of  the  Constitution,  that  the  great 
elements  of  strength"  and  power  remained  in  the  States  ;  insomuch 
that  they  feared  that  the  States  would  prove  to  be  too  strong  for 
the  effective  operation  of  the  Federal  Government,  rather  than 
that  the  latter  would  interfere  with  the  powers  of  the  States. — See 
Federalist,  Nos.  27,  31,  45  ;  whilst  the  most  wise  and  sagacious  ot 
its  friends,  considered  that  its  true  theory  and  glory  were,  strong 
States  and  a  weak  Federal  head,  whose  strength  consisted  in  its 
members  and  not  of  itself,  and  was  only  such  as  was  necessary  to' 
execute  the  few  powers  plainly  delegated  to  it. 

3.  In  its  nature  and  character,  the  Constitution  was  a  compact 
between  the  States,  and  the  Union  formed  under  it,  was  Federal. 
This  is  clear,  from  the  following  considerations  : 

1.  It  was  formed  by  the  States  acting  in  fheir  political  capacities, 
and  not  by  the  aggregate  mass  of  the  people  of  all  the  States  ;  and 
it  was  ratified  and  acceded  to  in  the  same  manner  by  each  State 
for  herself ;  those  not  acceding  to  it  being  wholly  free  from  its 
operation  and  remaining  independent  sovereign  States.  2.  It 
declares,  in  the  7th  article,  that  the  ratifications  of  the  Conventions 
of  nine  States  should  be  sufficient  to  establish  it  "  between  the  States" 
so  ratifying1  it — which  clearly  shows  that  the  States  as  such  were  the 
parties  to  it,  and  that  it  was  a  compact  between  them  as  such.  3. 
Amendments  to  it  are  to  be  acted  on  by  each  State  in  her  political 


7 

capacity,  by  her  Legislature,  or  by  a  convention  appointed  by  her 
and  under  her  own  laws,  each  acting  separately.  4.  The  powers 
not  delegated  are  reserved  to  the  States  or  to  the  people,  by  the 
10th  amendment— that  is,  to  the  States,  so  far  as  their  exercise  may 
be  matter  of  political  power  ;  and  to  the  people  of  each  State,  so 
far  as  the  same  may  be  matter  of  individual  right,  under  the  Con- 
stitution and  laws  of  the  State.  5.  It  was  denominated  a  Federal 
Constitution  by  its  advocates  in  recommending  its  ratification — 
(see  Federalist  passim) — the  Union  formed  by  it  was  called  a  Con- 
federate Republic — -(Federalist,  No.  9) — and  it  was  characterized,  in 
the  more  essential  and  controlling  points  of  the  foundation  and  the- 
extent  of  its  powers,  as  Federal ;  while  in  the  minor  matter  of  the 
execution  of  its  granted  powers  only,  it  was  said  to  be  national. — 
Federalist,  No.  39.  It  was  received  in  popular  acceptation  and 
called  a  Federal  Constitution — an  idea  so  universally  received  and 
so  popular  that  it  was  assumed  as  the  name  of  the  great  party  which 
came  into  power  upon  the  organization  of  the  government,  and 
held  it  until  that  party  proved  to  entertain  principles  and  views 
subversive  of  the.  true  spirit  of  the  Constitution,  and  in  the  mean- 
time laid  the  foundation  of  doctrines  which  have  led  to  its  prostra- 
tion. 6.  It  was  received  and  adopted  by  the  States  as  a  compact 
between  each  other.  While  this  is  manifest  from  the  history  of 
the  ratifications  of  all  the  States  in  their  conventions,  it  is  expressly 
stated  in  the  ratifications  of  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire, 
and  was,  in  a  few  years  thereafter,  also  expressly  declared  by 
Yirginia,  Kentucky,  and  several  other  States,  in  the  memorable 
contest  which  'arose  upon  the  alien  and  sedition  laws  in '1798. 

It  was  a  compact  between  sovereign  States  for  a  union  between 
them,  for  certain  specified  purposes,  to  promote  the  common 
defense  and  general  welfare  of  its  members.  Its  basis  was  that 
great  principle  of  American  institutions — the  consent  of  the  parties 
to  it ;  and  when  that  is  withdrawn,  and  the  parties  refuse  to 
"comply  with  the  terms  necessary  to  continue  its  operation,  its 
existence  must  cease,  since  there  is  no  provision — and  from  the 
nature  of  the  Union  there  could  not  be— for  its  continuance  by 
coercion ;  but  of  this  hereafter. 

The  doctrine  is  well  established,  that  "  several  sovereign  and 
independent  States  may  unite  themselves  together  by  a  perpetual 
confederacy,  without  each,  in  particular,  ceasing  to  be  an  inde- 
pendent State.  They  will  form  together  a  Federal  Republic  :  the 
deliberations  in  common  will  offer  no  violence  to  the  sovereignty  of 
each  member,  though  they  may,  in  certain  respects,  put  some 
constraint  on  the  exercise  of  it,  in  virtue  of  voluntary  engagements." 
Yattel,  Law  of  Nations,  book  1,  chap.  1,  sec.  10.  And  this  is 
clearly  the  nature  of  the  Union  of  the  States,  under  the  Con- 
stitution   of  the    United    States,    whether  it  be  called  a  Govern- 


ment,  a  confederacy,  or  a  compact.  "  The  proposed  Con- 
stitution," says  Mr.  Hamilton,  "  so  far  from  implying  an  aboli- 
tion of  the  State  Governments,  makes  them  constituent  parts  of  the 
■national  sovereignty." — Fed.,  No*  9.  •'  The  State  Governments 
may  be  regarded"  says  Mr.  Madison,  "  as  constituent  and 
essential  parts  of  the  Federal  Government. — Ibid,  No.  45. 

It  is  perfectly  manifest  that  the  Constitution  did  -not  merge 
the  States  in  this  Federal  Union,  and  annihilate  their  political 
existence  and  powers.  Unlike  the  articles  of  Union  of  the  United 
Kingdom  of  Great  Britain,  the  Union  was  Federate  in  its 
character,  the  States  retaining  their  sovereign  character  and  most 
essential  powers ;  whereas,  in  that  of  England  and  Scotland,  in 
the  language  of  the  learned  commentator  on  the  laws  of  England, 
"  the  two  contracting  States  are  totally  annihilated,  without  any 
power  of  revival,  and  a  third  arises  from  the  conjunction,  in 
which  all  the  rights  of  sovereignty,  and  particularly  that  of  legis- 
lation, must  reside."  This  author  states  the.  difference  between 
the  character  of  the  former  and  the  latter  kind  of  Government — 
that  in  a  union  of  the  latter  description,  an  infringement  of  its 
conditions  would  not  justify  a  dissolution.;  while  in  the  case  of  a 
union  of  the  former  character,  an  infringement  would  certainly 
rescind  the  compact. — 1  Blackstone's  Comm.,  98,  in  note. 

In  such  a  case,  the  sovereign  character  is  preserved;  and  it 
must,  of  necessity,  be  capable  of  vindicating  its  rights,  by  a 
resumption  of  the  delegated  powers  ;  for  otherwise,  its  sovereignty 
would  be  nugatory — indeed  it  would  be  virtually  annihilated  ;  and 
it  is  perfectly  evident,  from  the  entire  history  of  the  formation 
and  ratifications  of  the  Constitution,  that  it  was  the  especial  care 
of  the  States  to  preserve  their  sovereignty. 

There  is,  therefore,  nothing  in  the  purposes  for  which  the  Con- 
stitution was  formed,  nor  in  its  nature  and  character,  to  bind  the 
States  to  a  perpetual  union  under  it,  under  all  circumstances  ;  or 
to  debar  each  of  them  of  the  high  sovereign  power  of  vindicating 
her  rights,  by  resuming  her  original  powers  entirely,  whenever 
she  considered  that  the  fundamental  conditions  of  the  Union  had 
been  broken  by  the  government,  or  were  about  to  be  perverted,  to 
her  oppression. 

It  was  this  right  which  justified  the  States  in  abrogating  the 
Union  made  by  the  Articles  of  Confederation  in  disregard  of  a 
positive  stipulation  that  it  should  be  perpetual ;  and  in  establish- 
ing the  present  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  in  a  different 
mode  from  that  prescribed  in  the  Articles,  and  therein  positively 
declared  to  be  the  only  mode  in  which  they  should  be  altered. 
This  course  could  only  be  justified  .on  the  principle  of  the  right 
of  secession  ;  and  it  was  so  justified.     When  it  Was  objected  by 


9 

some  of  the  States  that  the  Constitution  was  adopted  in  violation 
of  these  solemn  stipulations  and  prohibitions,  against  the  consent 
of  several  of  the  States,  the  course  was  defended  by  its  advocates 
on  the  ground  of  "the  great  principle  of  self-preservation,"  and 
of  "  the  transcendant  law  of  nature  and  of  nature's  God,  which 
declares  that  the  safety  and  happiness  of  society  are  the  objects 
at  which  all  political  institutions  aim,  and  to  ivhich  all  such  insti- 
tutions, must  be  sacrificed." — Federalist,  No.  43.  There  was  no 
question  as  to  the  right  of  the  majority  to  take  this  step,  and  it 
could  not  be  justified  on  that  ground ;  because  the  rights  of  the 
minority  were  positively  placed  beyond  the  control  or  power  of 
the  majority,  by  the  prohibitions  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation. 
The  power  to  abolish  that  form  of  government  was  placed  solely 
on  the  great  right  of  •  American  liberty,  to  alter  or  abolish  any 
form,  of  government  whenever  the  safety  and  happiness  of  society 
required  it — a  right  never  parted  with  and  incapable  of  alienation — 
a  principle  as  fully  applicable  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  as  to  the  Union  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation ;  and 
even  more  so — since  in  •  the  former,  the  mode  of  alteration  is 
merely  authorized  ;  whereas  in  the  latt&r,  it  is  prescribed  and 
all  other  modes  of  alteration  are  positively  prohibited :  a  principle 
which  as  fully  justifies  secession  as  practised  by  the  Confederate 
States,  as  it  did  the  abrogation  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation  in 
violation  of  the  solemnly  plighted  faith  of  the  States  made  in  the 
adoption  of  that  form  of  Union,  and  against  the  consent  of  several 
of  them.  The  right  then  exercised  was  secession — the  resumption 
by  the  States  of  their  inherent  sovereign  powers,  in  their  own 
discretion  and  for  their  happiness. 

4.  But  this  right  does  not  s<;and  alone  upon  the  nature  and 
character  of  the  Union,  nor  upon  the  general  reservation  of 
rights  and  powers  in  the  Constitution — clear  and  unquestionable 
as  it  is  on  these  grounds.  It  was  matter  of  Express  and  positive 
reservation  by  several  of  the  States  in  the  ratifications  of  the  Con- 
stitution, and  was  plainly  intended  to  be  reserved  by  all. 

New  York,  in  her  resolutions  of  ratification,  declared — 

"■  That  the  powers  of  government  may  be  resumed.by  the  people, 
whensoever  it  shall  become  necessary  to  their  hapjyiness :  that  every 
power,  jurisdiction  and  right,  which  is  not,  by  said  Constitution, 
clearly  delegated  to  the  Congress  of  the  United  States,  or  the 
departments  of  the .  government  thereof,  remains  to  the  peopAe  of 
the  several  States,  or  to  their  respective  State  Governments." — 1 
Elliott's  Debates,  361. 

Rhode  Island,  in  her  ratification,  declares — 

■"  That  the  powers  of  government  may  be  resumed  by  the  people 

9 


10 


whensoever  it   shall   hecome  necessary  to  their  happiness." — Ibid, 
369. 

Virginia  declares,  in  her  ratification — 

"  That  the  powers  granted  under  the  Constitution,  being  de- 
rived from  the  people  of  the  United  States,  may  be  resumed  by 
them  whensoever  the  same  shall  he  perverted  to  their  injury  and, 
oppression. " — Ibid. 

That  the  language,  "  may  be  resumed  by  the  people."  .was  in- 
tended to  mean  the  people  of  the  /States,  as  /States,  is  most  manifest. 

In  the  first  place,  the  powers  were  delegated  by  the  States  as 
such,  and  could  not  be  said  to  be  "resumed"  except  by  the  same 
political  body '  which  granted  them.  They  never  resided  in  the 
people  of  the  United  States ;  and  hence,  upon  the  failure  of  the 
Union,  the  people  of  the  United  States  could  not  be  said  to  "re- 
sume" them;  but  resumption  imports  retaking  by  the  authority 
which  originally  possessed  them — that  is,  the  States  in  their  political 
capacity.  In  the  second  place,  the  ratifications  of  several  other 
of  the  States,  in  stating  the  reservation  of  powers  not  delegated  to 
the  United  States,  reserve  them  to  the  States,  omitting  the  addi- 
tion, "or  to  the  people  " — which  shows  that  these  latter  words  con- 
tained in  the  Tenth  Amendment,  and  the  equivalent  words, 
"  resumed  by  the  people,"  meant  the  people  of  the  States  severally  ; 
and  that  the  true  intent  of  this  amendment  and  of  the  reserva- 
tions in  the  ratifications  of  the  States,  was  to  retain  the  undele- 
gated powers  to  the  people  of  the  several  States,  as  sovereign 
communities,  to  be  exercised  by  them  under  their  Constitutions  and 
laws  ;  that  is  to  say,  in  their  sovereign  capacities.  This  clearly 
appears  from  the  ratifications  of  Massachussetts,  New  Hampshire, 
New  York,  Pennsylvania  and  South  Carolina. 

Massachusetts — &*'  That  it  be  explicitly  declared  that  all  powers 
not  expressly  delegated  by  the  aforesaid  Constitution,  are  reserved 
to  the  several  States,  to  be  by  them  exercised." 

New  Hampshire — "  That  it  be  explicitly  declared  that  all  powers 
not  expressly  and  particularly  delegated  by  the  aforesaid  Consti- 
tution, are  reserved  to  the  several  States,  to  be  by  them  exercised." 

Pennsylvania — "All  the  rights  of  sovereignty,  which  are  not 
by  the  said  Constitution  expressly  and  plainly  vested  in  the  Con- 
gress, shall  be  deemed,  to  remain  with,  and  shall  be  exercised  by, 
the  several  States  in  the  Union,  according  to  their  respective  Con- 
stitutions." 

New  York  has  been  quoted  above. 

South  Carolina — "  That  no  section  or  paragraph  of  the  said 
Constitution  warrants  a  construction  *that  the  States  do  not  retain 
every  power  not  expressly  relinquished  by  them,  and  vested  in  the 
General  Government  of  the  Union." 


11 

It  was  these  declarations  which  caused  the  engrafting  of  the 
ninth  and  tenth  amendments  into  the  Constitution ;  and  furnish 
the  true  and  proper  exposition  to  the  words,  "the  people,"  in 
these  amendments ;  showing  them  to  mean  the  people  of  the  States 
respectively  in  their  sovereign,  capacity.  And  this  is  equally  true 
of  the  same  words  used  contemporaneously  in  the  ratifications 
above  mentioned. 

And  now, — when  challenged  to  adduce  positive  authority  for 
the  right  of  secession,  and  for  the  doctrine  that.the  States  did  not 
intend  to  bind  themselves  by  the  Constitution,  to  an  indissoluble 
union,  under  all  circumstances, — we  point  to  these  solemn  decla- 
rations of  the  States  in  their  ratifications  of  the  Constitution, 
and  to  the  ninth  and  tenth,  amendments  which  were  produced  by 
these  declarations,  as  clear  and  positive  proof  that  the  Union  zvas 
established  upon  the  express  condition  that  the  States  respectively 
had  the  right  to  resume  their  powers  of  sovereignty  delegated  by 
the  Constitution,  whensoever  they  considered  that  their  happiness 
and  safety  demanded  it. 

The  right  of  judging  of  this  matter  must  necessarily  reside  in 
each  State ;  because  the  reservation  of  power  is  to  the  States 
respectively;  and  from  its  very  nature,  each  State  must  decide  for 
herself.  It  could  not  apply  to  the  States  in  the  aggregate,  or  to  a 
majority  of  them;  both  because  of  its  nature,  and  because  it  is 
not  so  reserved.  Hence  the  right,  to  be  of  any  value,  and  especi- 
ally to  be  consistent  with  the  principles  on  which  the  Union  was 
founded,  must  appertain  to  each  State  respectively. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  this. right  should  be  specified  in  the  Con- 
stitution. It  was  not  the  office  of  that  instrument  to  enumerate 
the  reserved  rights  of  the  States,  and  no  Government  makes 
provision  for  its  own  dissolution.  .  It  is  sufficient  if  the  right  ex- 
isted when  the  constitution  was  acceded  to  by  the  States,  and  was 
not  clearly  parted  with  in  that  instrument.  And  how  does  the 
question  thus  stand  ? 

When  the  Union  was  formed,  the  principle  set  forth  in  the  Dec- 
laration of  Independence,  was  recognised  as  a  fundamental  doc- 
trine, in  all  its  force  and  extent,  by  all  the  States,  and  cherished 
as  the  palladium  of  our  liberty — "that  whenever  any  form  of 
government  becomes  destructive  of  the  ends  for  which  it  was  estab- 
lished, IT  IS  THE  RIGHT  OF  THE  PEOPLE  TO  ALTER  OR  ABOLISH  IT, 
and  TO  institute  a  new  government,  laying  its  foundations 
on  such  principles,  and  organizing  its  powers  in  such  form,  as  to 
them  shall  be  most  likely  to  effect  their  safety  and  happiness. ' ' 
It  was  upon  this  high  principle,  that  the  States  were  declared 
"free  and  independent  States,"  and  came  into  being  as  sovereign 
States.     And  the  basis  principle  on  .which  all  republican  govern- 


•12 

ments  rest,,  and  especially  those  of  these  States,  is,  "that  govern- 
ments derive  tlieir  just  powers  from  the  consent  of  the  governed." 
Assuredly  this  inestimable  right  was  never  intended  to  be  impaired 
in  the  formation  and  adoption  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  Nay,  it  is  positively  shown  that  it  was  upon  this  very 
principle,  that  the  formation  and  adoption  of  this  Constitution — 
which  were  in  palpable  violation  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation 
— were  justified  by  its  advocates,  as  is  above  shown. 

It  was  regarded  as  a  high  and  sacred  right,  appertaining  to  the 
people  of  the  States,  when  the  Constitution  was  formed ;  and  not 
only  was  not  parted  with,  in  that  instrument,  but  it  was  positively 
reserved. 

The  ninth  amendment  declares,  that  "  the  enumeration  in  the 
Constitution  of  certain  rights,  shall  not  be  construed  to  deny  or 
disparage  others  retained  by  the  people."  This  is  a  positive  res- 
ervation of  all  individual  rights  appertaining  to  the  people  of  the 
States,  under  their  respective  State  Governments,  whether  enume- 
rated or  not ;  and  it  was  introduced  from  abundant  caution,  to 
exclude  the  possibility  of  the  legal  implication,  that  other  rights, 
not  enumerated  were  denied  to  the  citizen  or  delegated  to  the 
Government. 

Of  the  same  character  is  the  tenth  amendment,  "that  the 
powers  not  delegated  to  the  United  States  by  the  Constitution,  nor 
prohibited  by  it  to  the  States,  are  reserved  to  the  States  respec- 
tively or  to  the  people;"  that  is  to  say,  to  the  States,  or  to  the 
-people  of  the  Strifes,  respectively,  in  their  sovereign  political  ca- 
pacity as  States,  to  be  exercised  and  enjoyed  according  to  the 
Constitution  and  laws  of  each  State;  because  it  was  in  that  ca- 
pacity alone  that  the  several  States  acted  in  forming  and  adopting 
the  Constitution,  and  became  parties  to  the  compact.  And  it  is 
manifest  from  the  history  of  these  amendments,  that  their  scope 
and  object  were,  to  place  beyond  question  and  beyond  the  possi- 
bility of  interference  by  the  Federal  Government,  the  rights  and 
powers  of  the  people  of  the  States,  held  and  enjoyed  under  their 
respective  State  governments,  and  not  delegated  nor  prohibited  in 
the  Constitution. 

Thus  all  the  rights  and  powers  of  each  State  and  of  her  people 
under  their  respective  State  Governments,  not  enumerated  and 
not  delegated  nor  prohibited,  are  expressly  retained.  The  pur- 
pose of  the  Constitution  was  not  to  specify  the  rights  retained, 
but  to  enumerate  those  delegated  to  the  United  States.  Hence, 
if  a  right  existed  in  a  State  at  the  formation  cf  the  Constitution, 
and  be  not  enumerated  among  the  "  delegated  powers,"  or  "pro- 
hibited rights,"  in  the  Constitution,  it  remains  to  the  States.  It 
is  thus- that  all  the  numerous  rights  and  powers  of  civil  adminis- 


• 


13 

tration  in  the  Several  States,  and  the  individual  rights  of  the 
citizen  under  their  respective  State  Governments,  not  reserved  by 
enumeration,  nor  prohibited  in  the  Constitution,  are  retained  by 
the  respective  States. 

Now  it  is  incumbent  on  those  who. claim  that  this  high  power, 
this  invaluable  right,  this  distinguishing  principle  of  American 
liberty,  was  given  up  by  the  sovereign  States  in  the  Constitution, 
to  show  clearly  where  and  how,  that  was  done.  It  will  not 
do  to  rest  its  surrender  upon  plausible  refinements  and  doubtful 
theories ;  for  it  must  be  presumed,  that  if  this  right,  which  was 
considered  so  sacred  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution,  and  so 
inestimable  by  the  States,  had  been  intended  to  be  parted  with  or 
impaired,  it  would  have  been  done  in  language  not  to  be  mistaken. 
And,  therefore,  if  the  question  be  merely  left  in  doubt,  whether 
the  right  is  surrendered,  it  is  the  part  of  wisdom  and  safetv*to 
resolve  it  in  favor  of  the  retention  of  the  right;  since  in  cases' of  . 
doubt,  it  is  always  safest,  according  to  principles  of  American  gov- 
ernment, to  entrust  high  powers,  with  the.  people,  the  source  of 
political  power. 

And  this  brings  us  to  consider  the  grounds  on  which  it  is  com 
tended  that  the  Constitution  establishes  an  indissoluble  Union 
between  the  States. 

1.  It  is  said  that  the  Constitution  creates  direct  relations  between 
the  Government  established  by  it  and  the  individuals  composing 
the  United  States — giving  to  the  Government  power,  to  punish  in- 
dividuals for  crimes  committed  against  it ;  to  impose  taxes  upon 
them  and  to  collect  the  same  ;  to  require  military  service  of  them  ; 
and  creating  many  other  direct  relations  of  duty  and  responsibility 
between  the  Government  and  the  masses  of  the  people,  involving 
protection  by  the  Government,  and  obedience  and  allegiance  to  its 
authority,  on  the  part' of  individuals  ;  and  that  the  Constitution 
was  made  and  established,  not  as  a  compact  between  the  States,  but 
by  the  people  of  the  Ukited  States  as  one  people.  It  is  hence  contended 
that  the  Constitution  created  a  Government,  to  which  all  the  people 
composing  the  States  are  parties,  as  an  aggregate  mass,  irrespective 
of  the  States  ;  and  that  as  to  the  authority  and  power  of  the  Gov- 
ernment, the  people  of  all  the  States  became  one)  people,  and  the 
character  of  the  States,  as  sovereign  States,  became  extinguished 
or  merged  in  the  Union  formed  by  the  Constitution,  winch  thereby 
became  indissoluble  by  the  acts,  of  the  several  States. 

Let  us  consider  the  arguments  relied  on  to  support  these  views. 

In  the  first  place,  as  to  the  parties  which  established  the  Con- 
stitution .  Great  reliance  is  placed  upon  the  words  of  the  preamble  : 
"  We,  the  people  of  the  United  States"  &c,  as  showing  that  it  was  the 
act  of  the  people  of  the  United  States,  as  one  people.     But  to  this, 


14 

there  are  several  conclusive  answers.  1st.  The  language  is  ambig- 
uous, and,  upon  its  face,  may  as  well  mean  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  acting  in  their  capacity  as  States,  as  the  people  of  the  United 
States  as  an  aggregate  mass  ;  for  the  language  leaves  it  perfectly 
uncertain  in  what  capacity  "  the  people  "  were  acting.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  the  words  of  themselves  do  not  clearly  sustain  the 
argument  founded  on  them  ;  and  at  best  they  present  a  case  of  latent 
ambiguity.  In  such  a  case,  we  must  resort  to  the  history  of  the 
proceeding  to  ascertain  the  character  in  which  "  the  people  "  acted, 
and  the  true  import  of  thelanguage  used. '  And  we  learn  from  the 
entire  history  of  the  event — from  the  appointment  of  delegates  to 
the  General  Convention — from  the  votes  and  proceedings  of  that 
Convention — from  the  proceedings  of  the  several  State  Conven- 
tions of  ratification — that  every  act  in  the  formation  and  ratifica- 
tion of  the  Constitution,  was  done  byA  the  States  severally  and  in 
their  political  capacity. 

It  is  sufficient,  on  this  point,  to  refer  to  the  declarations  of  Mr. 
Madison,  in  the  Federalist,  No.  39.  Speaking  of  the  ratifications 
by  the  States,  he  says  :  "  This  assent  and  ratification  is  to  be  given 
by  the  people,  not  as  individuals  composing  an  entire  nation,  but  as 
composing  the  distinct  and  independent  States  to  which  they  respec- 
tively belong.  *  *  *  Each  State,  in  ratifying  the  Constitution,  is 
considered  as  a  sovereign  body,  independent  of  all  others,  and  only  to 
be  bound  by  its  own  voluntary  act." 

2d.  The  words  of  the  preamble  must  be  taken  to  refer  to  the 
condition  of  the  States  or  people,  before,  and  jot  the  time  of,  the 
ratification,  so  far  as  they  tend  to  designate  the  character  of  the 
parties  to  it ;  and  it  is  admitted  that  the  States  were  then  sovereign 
States,  united  by  a  compact,  and  not  one  people  called  the  United 
States.  See  Mr.  Webster's  speech  on  Mr.  Calhoun's  resolutions 
in  February,  1833.  So  that  there  were  then  no  people  of  the  United 
States,  in  the  sense  of  an  aggregate  mass  or  nation. 

When  the  Constitution  was  submitted  for  ratification,  there  were 
no  people  of  the  United  States,  under  that  Constitution.  The  words 
under  consideration  cannot  refer  to  the  condition  of  the  States  or 
people,  after  the  ratification  ;  for  upon  no  principle  of  construc- 
tion, can  general  words — relating  to  the  character  in  which  parties 
to  an  instrument  act — be  referred  to  the  status  which  they  occupy 
under  the  operation  ef  the  instrument,  but  must  be  taken  to  desig- 
nate the  character  in  which  they  act  at  the  time,  and  in  the  matter, 
of  the  execution  of  the  instrument.  3d.  General  words  in  a  pre- 
amble cannot  control  an  instrument  so  as  to  give  it  an  operation 
contrary  to  its  positive  provisions,  in  opposition  to  the  context  and 
to  all  the  facts  attending  its  execution,  showing  the  intention  of  the 
parties  ;  and  it  is  impossible  to  give  to  these  words  the  effect  con- 
tended for,  without  ignoring  the  plain  intention  of  the  framers  of 


15 

the  Constitution  and  of  the  States  in  ratifying  it,  as  shown  by  the 
entire  history  of  these  events. 

We  must,  therefore  resolve  these  doubtful  words,  so  as  to  make 
them  consistent  with  truth,  and  expound  them  by  the  well  known 
history  of  the  events  which  .gave  rise  to  them  ;  and  to  viewed,  it 
appears  to  be  impossible  to  escape  the  conclusion,  that  they  mean  : 
We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  acting  in  the  capacity  of 
sovereign  States,  each  for  herself. 

The  provisions  of  the  Constitution  are  irreconcilable  with  the 
views  insisted  upon.  They  speak  of  "citizens  of  the.  different 
States." — Art  3.  Sec.  2. — "the  citizcs  of  each  State.'^Art.  4. 
Sec  2  ;  but- no  where  of  citizens  of  the  United  States,  as  would  have 
been  the  case,  if  the  Constitution  had  been  designed  to  establish  a 
government  of  one  entire  people.  No  citizen  of  one  State  has  the 
right  to  go  into  another  State  and  there  vote  for  any  office,  even  for 
Presidenfrof  the  United  States,  without  becoming  a  citizen  of  th^t 
State,  according  to  her  Constitution  and  laws. 
•  In  the  next  place,  it  is  said  that  the  Constitution  establishes  a 
Government,  operating  on  all  the  individual  citizens,  and  binding 
them  to  its  authority,  with  ample  powers  to  carry  it  into  eSect  ; 
and  that  this  creates  a  Government,  to  which  the  people  of  the 
United  States  are  parties,  and  a  Union,  which  the  States  have  no 
right  to  dissolve. 

It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  the  Constitution  empowers  the  Fed- 
eral Government  to  exercise  its  legitimate  jurisdiction  directly  over 
individuals  ;  creating  certain  duties  and  obligations  to  be  performed 
by  them  to  the  Government,  and  corresponding  duties,  on  the  part 
of  the  Government,  to  them.  But  it  by  no  means  follows  that  this 
power  was  derived  from  the  act  of  the  people  of  the  United  States, 
acting  as  independent  individuals  and  irrespective  of  their  condi- 
tion as  the  people  of  the  several  States  of  which  they  were  citizens. 
For  it  is  above  shown  that  all  the  acts  in  relation  to  the  formation 
and  ratification  of  the  Constitution,  were  done  by  the  rceople  of 
the  States  severally,  in  their  sovereign  capacity,  as  political  bodies. 
And  the  position  here  stated  is  but  a  repetition  of  that  radical 
error  which  lies  at  the  bottom  of  all  the  views  in  opposition  to 
the  true  rights  and  powers  of  the  States  and  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment, and  in  favor  of  the  transcendant  powers  of  the  Government 
of  the  United  States.  ' 

Nor  does  it  follow  from  the  fact  that,  in  certain  respects,  the 
Federal  Government  has  power  to  act  upon  individuals,  that  the 
States  are  thereby  deprived  of  their  sovereign  powers.  For,  1st, 
the  great  mass  of  their  powers  are  expressly  retained  ;  and,  as  to 
all  such,  there  could  be  no  pretense  that  their  powers  of  sovereignty 
were  impaired  by  the  delegation  of  the  few  powers  in  the  Con- 
stitution. 2d,  It  is  perfectly  competent  fqr  a  sovereign,  by  compact 


16 

to  grant  to  another,  or  to  delegate  to  an  agent,  power  to  act 
directly  upon  his  subject  or  citizen,  in  certain  specified  cases,  with- 
out surrendering  his  sovereign  rights  and  powers  in  other,  and 
the  most  essential,  attributes  of  sovereignty.  And  this  may 
especially  be  done,  where  there  is  a  Confederate  Union  between 
two  or  more  sovereigns,  such  as  is  referred  to  by  Tattel  in  the 
citation  above  made  ;  and  of  this  character  was  the  Federal  Union 
under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  In  such  cases,  the 
granted  powers  do  not  affect  those  not  granted  ;  the  latter  remain- 
ing as  though  the  compact  had  never  been  made ;  and  the  deter- 
mination of  all  questions  in  relation  to  the  fact  whether  any  par- 
ticular power  claimed,  is  granted  or  reserved,  rests  upon  principles 
of  public  law  applicable  to  the  rights  of  sovereigns,  where  there  is 
no  common  arbiter  to  judge  between  them;  and  each  must  judge 
for  himself. 

,  2.  It  is  said  that  the  Constitution,  and  the  laws  and  treaties, 
made  in  pursuance  of  it,  are  expressly  ordained  by  the  Constitution 
to  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land  ;  and  that  this  deprives  the  States 
of  all  right  and  power  to  resume  the  powers  of  government  dele- 
gated, under  any  circumstances,  or  to  redress  grievances  under  the 
action  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  except  in  the 
mode  prescribed  in  the  Constitution. 

This  position  appears  to  be  founded  in  a  great  misapprehension 
of  the  scope  and  purpose  of  the  clause  of  the  Constitution  relied 
on  to  support  it. 

The  Constitution  and  the  laws  and  treaties  made  in  pursuance 
of  it,  are,  beyond  doubt,  the  supreme  law  of  the  land  ;  that  is  to 
say,  they  are  paramount  to  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  several 
States,  in  all  matters  within  the  scope  and  limits  of  the  powers 
delegated  in  the  Constitution.  But  the  object  of  the  provision 
obviously  was,  to  prevent  conflicts  between  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  the  Federal  Government  and  those  of  the  States,  in 
the  ordinary  administration  of  the  delegated  powers  of  the  Govern- 
ment. It  established  a  rule  of  judicial  and  administrative  action 
iu  such  cases,  without  which  the  Government  might  have  been 
powerless  to  execute  its  clearly  delegated  powers.  But  it  has  no 
reference  whatever  to  questions  of  power  between  the  States  and 
Federal  Government,  arising  by  reason  of  the  reserved  rights  of 
the  States  ;  and  was  never  intended  to  have  any  application  to 
those  rights ;  for  the  manifest  reason,  that  all  such  rights  and 
powers  were  expressly  retained,  and  were  entirely  beyond  the 
sphere  of  action  of  the  Federal  Government,  as  it  was  understood 
when  the  Constitution  was  adopted.  Hence  the  provision  can 
have  no  reference  to  the  reserved  rights  and  powers  of  the  States. 

That  this  is  the  true  scope  of  this  clause  of  the  Constitution  is 
plain  from  the  observations  of  Mr.  Madison,  in  relation  to  it  in  the 


44th  number  of  the  Federalist.  And  Mr.  Hamilton,  says  in  No. 
29,  "that  the  laws  of  tne  Confederacy,  as  to  the  enumerated  and 
legitimate  objects  of  Us  jurisdiction,  will  become  the  supreme  law  of 
the  land." 

But  the  construction  attempted  to  be  given  to  it  would  make  the 
Constitution  the  supreme  law  in  reference  to  matters  not  within 
its  scope,  aud  destroy  rights  and  powers  expressly  reserved  to  the 
States  by  its  provisions  ;  or  it  begs  the  question,  by,  assuming  that 
the  particular  power  in  controversy,  is  granted  in  the  Constitu- 
tion. It  is,  therefore,  clear  that  it  is  not  the  supreme  law  in 
relation  to  the  undelegated  rights  and  powers  of  the*6tates. 

And  here  the  important  question  arises— who  is  to  determine 
controversies  as  to  whether  the  acts  of  the  Government  are  '  in 
pursuance  of"  the  Constitution — that  is,  whether  they  are  in 
derogation  of  the  reserved  rights  of  the  States  ? 

It  is  insisted  that  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  is 
the  tribunal  appointed  by  the  Constitution  to  settle  such  questions  ; 
and  to  its  decisions,  that  the  States  are  bound  to  submit  in  all 
cases,  since  the  Constitution  confers  upon  that  Court  jurisdiction 
in  "all  cases,  in  law  and  equity,  arising  under  the  Constitution,  laws  of 
the  United  States,  and  treaties  made  under  the  authority  thereof" 

This,  it  is  insisted,  is  the  arbiter  fixed  for  determining  all  ques- 
tions of  political  power  between  the  States  and  the  Federal  Gov- 
ernment, except  matters  which  cannot  be  resolved  into  the  form 
of  a  suit ;  and  in  these,  that  the  action  of  the  Legislative  depart- 
ment is  conclusive  as  to  its  power  to  pass  the  acts. 

If  this  view  of  the  subject  be  well  founded,  it  is  clear  that  the 
Constitution  Aakes  a  Government  .with  very  different  powers  from 
what  was  intended  to  be  conferred.  And  does  it  not  appear  to  be 
passing  strange,  that  the  States  should  so  positively  reserve  their 
rights  and  powers  not  delegated,  and  yet  leave  to  the  Federal 
Government  the  right  of  determining  whether  such  and  such  rights 
were  reserved  or  not — thereby  making  the  Federal  Government  at 
once  the  judge,  not  only  of  its  own  powers,  but  of  the  rights  and 
powers  of  the  sovereign  States  composing  the  Union  ;  in  fact, 
placing  all  their  rights  and  powers  under  the  power  and  discretion 
of  the  Government,  created  for  special  and  limited  purposes  ? 
Jealous  as  were  the  States  of  their  sovereign  rights,  and  of  the 
retention  of  them  beyond  the  power  of  the  Government  formed  by 
the  Constitution — which  is  abundantly  shown,  both  in  the  history 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention  which  formed  it,  and  of  the 
State  Conventions  in  ratifying  it— it  is  impossible  to  believe  that 
they  could  have  intended  to  confer  on  the  Government,  through 
one  of  its  departments,  a  power  which  would  enable  it  to  enlarge 
its  powers  at  discretion,  to  the  virtual  destruction  of  their  essential 
rights  and  powers  as  sovereign  States.  And  it  may  be  safely 
3 


18 

asserted,  upon  the  history  referred  to,  that  if  any  such  power  had 
been  claimed  for  Congress,  or  if  any  such  construction  had  been 
put  upon  the  clause  in  relation  to  the  Judicial  Department,  as  is 
contended  for,  the  Constitution  would  have  been  promptly  rejected 
or  the  misconception  prevented  by  amendment.  The  statesmen  of 
that  day  knew  too  well  the  history  of  judicial  usurpations  in  Eng- 
land, and  everywhere  else,  to  entrust  the  cherished  rights  of  the 
States,  to  a  tribunal  so  prone  to  enlarge  the  just  sphere  of  govern- 
mental powers. 

It  may  be  remarked,  with  reference  to  the  position,  that  Congress 
is  the  judge  of  its  own  powers,  that  it  would  have  b  een  useless  to 
give  to  the  judiciary  the  power  to  determine  such  questions,  if  that 
position  be  sound.  And  if  the  power  be  given  to  the  judiciary, 
that  is  sufficient  to  show  that  it  was  not  intended  to  be  given  to 
Congress.  The  argument  in  favor  of  the  former,  refutes  that  in 
favor  of  the  latter.  It  is  also  clear,  that  this  doctrine  would  make 
the  discretion  of  Congress,  and  not  the  limitations  of  the  Con- 
stitution, the  boundary  of  its  power,  and  would  virtually  transform 
the  government  into  one  of  unlimited  powers. 

But  the  authority  claimed  for  the  Supreme  Court  is  more  relied 
on,  and  is  entitled  to  more  consideration. 

The  reasons  for  the  jurisdiction  given  to  the  judiciary  by  this  pro- 
vision are  stated  to  be —  < 

1st.  To  supply  the  defect  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  and 
provide  a  tribunal  to  give  uniformity  of  construction  to  the  laws 
passed  by  .Congress  and  treaties  made  in  relation  to  matters  clearly 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Government ;  and  to  prevent  the  con- 
fusion that  would  arise  from  divers  constructions,  in  *such  cases,  by 
the  several  State  Courts.  See  Federalist,  No.  22,  page  102  and 
No.  80,  page  365. 

2d .  To  restrain  the  States  from  the  exercise  of  powers  prohibited 
to  them  by  the  Constitution. — Ibid,  No.  80,  page  365-367. 

These  are  stated  by  the  advocates  of  the  Constitution — who 
were  participants  in  its  formation  and  intimately  acquainted  with 
the  intention  with  which  its  provisions  were  framed — to  be  the 
scope  and  object  of  the  clause.  Mr.  Hamilton  said — "It  seems 
scarcely  to  admit  of  controversy,  that  the  judiciary  authority  of  the 
Union  ought  to  extend  to  these  several  descriptions  of  cases — 1st, 
To  all  those  which  arise  out  of  the  laws  of  the  United  States, 
passed  in  pursuance  of  their  just  and  Constitutional  powers  of  legisla- 
tion. 2d.  To  all  those  which  concern  the  extension  of  the  provis- 
ions expressly  contained  in  the  Articles  of  Union.  3d.  To  all 
those  in  which  the  United  States  are  a  party.  4th.  To  all  those 
which  involve  the  power  of  the  Confederacy,  whether  they 
i-elate  to  the  intercourse  between  the  United  States  and  foreign 
aations,  or  to  that  between  the   States  themselves.     5th.  To  all 


19 

those  which  originate  on  the  high  seas  and  are  of  admiralty,  or 
maritime  jurisdiction  ;  and,  lastly,  to  all  those  in  which  the  State 
tribunals  cannot  be  supposed  to  be  impartial  and  unbiassed." — Ibid,- 
No.  80. 

The  first  class,  he  says,  has  reference  to  restrictions  placed  bv  the 
Constitution  on  the  powers  of  the  States,  in  matters  prohibited  to 
them,  and  is  justified  on  the  ground  of  providing  "  a  Constitutional 
method  of  giving  efficiency  to  Constitutional  provisions,"  and  of 
exercising  powers  clearly  granted  to  the  Government.  The  second 
class  is  justified  on  the  ground  of  necessity  in  giving  uniformity  to 
the  laws  of  the  Government  passed  in  pursuance  of  their  legitimate 
powers.  The  third  has  reference  to  controversies  between  the  na- 
tion and  its  members  or  citizens — the  fourth,  to  the  determination 
of  causes  between  two  States,  between  one  State  and  the  citizens  of 
another,  and  between  the  citizens  of  different  States — the  fifth,  to  the 
special  cases  mentioned — and  the  sixth,  to  causes  of  a  civil  nature 
between  different  States  and  their  citizens  in  which  the  State  Courts 
may  be  supposed  to  be  biased. 

It  is  to  the  first  two  classes  above  enumerated,  that  the  clauses 
of  the  Constitution,  in  relation  to  cases  in  law  and  equity  arising 
under  the  Constitution  and  t/ie  laws  of  the  United  States,  is  applicable, 
as  Mr.  Hamilton  distinctly  states.  He  asks  what  is  meant  by 
"cases  arising  under  the  Constitution  ;"  and  answers,  that  it  refers  to 
restrictions  upon  the  authority  of  the  State  Legislatures,  and  to  their 
exercise  of  powers  'prohibited  to  them  by  the  Constitution.  Strong  advo- 
cate as  he  was,  in  his  individual  opinions,  of  a  Government  of  large 
powers,  he  gives  no  countenance  to  the  idea — in  stating  the  princi- 
ples and  objects  of  the  Constitution — that  the  clause  under  consid- 
eration had  any  reference  to  questions  of  political  power  arising 
between  the  States  and  the  Federal  Government.  Neither  the  words 
of  the  clause — "cases  in  law  or  equity  arising  under  the.Constitu- 
tion  " — nor  the  contemporaneous  exposition  given  to  it  by  its  advo- 
cates— justify  the  construction  attempted  to  be  given  to  them. 
And  it  is  perfectly  clear  from  the  history  of  the  Constitution,  and 
from  the  well  known  jealousy  of  the  States  in  regard  to  the  danger 
of  an  undue  extension  of  the  powers  of  the  Government  in  its  course 
and  progress,  that  it  was  never  contemplated  to  confer  upon  the 
Government  created  by  them,  the  power  to  determine  and  circum- 
scribe their  reserved  rights  and  powers,  and  through  one  of  its  de- 
partments to  enlarge  its  own  powers  according  to  judicial  discre- 
tion. That  history  affords  the  most  ample  evidence  that  the  States 
could  never  have  intended  to  make  the  Federal  Government  the 
judge  of  their  reserved  rights  and  powers  ;  and  that  the  Constitu- 
tion would  never  have  been  ratified  if  it  had  contained  any  such 
doctrine,  in  regard  to  the  powers  of  the  Government  and  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Supreme  Court,  as  that  sanctioned  by  that  Court  in 


m 

the  case  of  McCulloch  vs.  the  State  of  Maryland.  No  such  power 
was  claimed  for  it  until  long  after  it  had  been  in  operation,  nor 
until  its  genius  and  spirit  had  been  seriously  perverted  by  ingeni- 
ous constructions  and  false  theories  which  have  finally  ended  in  its 
subversion. 

It  is,  therefore,  evident  that  the  power  is  not  granted  to  the  Fed- 
eral Government  to  determine  questions  of  this  nature,  and  thereby 
to  preclude  the  rights  of  the  States. 

Bnt  suppose  the  Federal  Government  usurps  powers  in  a  form 
which  cannot  be  brought  before  the  judiciary  ;  or  suppose  the 
judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court,  in  favor  of  the  rights  of  a  State. 
be  disregarded  by  the  Executive  and  Legislative  departments  of 
the  Government,  which  persist  in  the  unconstitutional  acts,  to  the 
oppression  of  the  people  of  the  States.  Is  there  no  remedy? 
Every  man  must  answer  that  there  is  ;  or  the  sacred  rights  of  self- 
protection  and  of  self-government  are  vain  and  illusory,  and  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  erects  a  despotism  under  the  guise 
of  a  Federal  Republic.  What,  then,  is  the  nature  of  the  remedy? 
Is  it  a  matter  of  right,  or  does  it  depend  upon  the  mere  ability 
of  the  State  to  maintain  it  to  a  successful  issue  if  resisted  by 
force  ? 

It  must  be  matter  ef  right ;  because,  by  the  violation  of  the 
compact  of  Union,  to  her  oppression,  she  had  the  right  to  consider 
the  compact  as  at  an  end,  and  was  remitted  to  her  original 
sovereign  rights,  if  she  thought  fit  to  resume  them  ;  and  this  right 
necessarily  arose  from  the  nature  of  the  compact,  which  was  a 
Federal  Union  for  specific  purposes  to  a  limited  extent  between  the 
States  as  sovereign  parties  to  it.  And  this  is  the  right  of  secession — 
a  right,]  and  therefore  beyond  the  rightful  molestation  [or  inter- 
ference of  any  earthly  power. 

If  this  be  not  true,  her  rights  are  violated  and  the  compact  of 
Union  subverted,  to  her  oppression,  and  yet  she  has  no  other  remedy 
than  to  resist  the  usurpation  by  force — the  remedy  of  revolution, 
which  is  only  rightful,  in  the  estimation  of  the  world,  when  it  be- 
comes successful ;  and,  if  unsuccessful,  is  rebellion  and  treason. 
Under  this  view,  she  has  no  right  to  avoid  or  resist  the  usurpation 
and  oppression  ;  but  her  right  depends  upon  whether  she  can  suc- 
cessfully maintain  herself  against  the  oppressor — and  that  is  no 
right  at  all — so  that  the  strange  case  is  presented  of  a  clear  wrong 
and  usurpation,  by  one  party,  to  the  oppression  of  the  other,  with- 
out any  absolute  and  adequate  right  of  redress  to  the  latter,  except 
that  of  brute  force,  Then  she  either  has  no  right  at  all  in  such  a 
case,  or  she  has  the  right  to  treat  the  compact  as  ended  by  the  vio- 
lation of  its  provisions,  and  to  be  restored  to  her  position  of  an 
absolutely  sovereign  State,  which  she  enjoyed  before  the  Union 
was  formed — which  is  the  ri srht  of  secession. 


21 

To  illustrate  further — suppose  an  act  of  the  Federal  Government, 
in  gross  and  palpable  violation  of  the  positive  guaranties,  or  powers 
prohibited  to  the  Government  in  the  Constitution — operating  to 
the  oppression  of  a  single  Slate  ;  and  suppose  none  of  the  other 
States  would  co-operate  with  her  in  resisting  it — -it  is  plain  that  if 
the  Federal  Government  thought  fit  to  persist  in  enforcing  it,  the 
State  would  be  without  remedy,  unless  she  had  the  right  to  absolve 
herself  from  the  Union. .  The  remedy  of  revolution  would  only 
lead  to  her  destruction  by  overwhelming  forces.  Has  she  then  no 
higher  right  than  that  of  mere  force  to  resist  the  oppression  ?  Un- 
questionably, from  the  nature  of  the  compact  between  her  and  her 
associate  States  in  the  Union,  she  has  the  right  to  withdraw  from 
the  confederacy,  and  peaceably  to  resume  her  position  as  a  sov- 
ereign and  independent  State,  because  this  was  a  right  appertaining 
to  her  as  a  sovereign  State,  and  which  she  had  never  surrendered 
in  the  Constitution. 

The  distinction  between  secession  and  revolution  is  not  merely  in 
terms.  It  is  wide  and  essential.  The  former  is  founded  in  right, 
and  does  not  depend  oh  force  for  its  comp!ete>  enjoyment.  Being 
rightful,  no  power  on  earth  has  a  right  to  gainsay  it,  or  to  interfere 
with  its  exercise  ;  for  there  canuot  be  conflicting  rights  upon  one 
and  the  same  subject.  Because  the  State  entered  into  the  Union  as 
a  sovereignty,  and  retained  all  her  sovereign  powers  which  she  did 
not  delegate  to  the  Government,  upon  the  violation  of  the  funda- 
mental conditions  of  the  compact,  she  was  absolved  from  its  obliga- 
tions, and  restored  all  her  to  sovereign  powers. 

But  revolution,  as  a  means  of  redress,  is  a  mere  forcible  resistance 
to  wrong  and  oppression  under  a  constituted  government,  from 
which  it  assumes  there  is  no  legal  right  to  be  absolved — to  be  met 
by  opposing  force.  It  is  not  predicable  of  the  right  to  resume  the 
former  position  of  a  sovereign  State.  If  successful,  the  State  is  de- 
livered from  the  oppression,  but  does  not  thereby  necessarily  become 
restored  to  her  status  as  a  sovereign  State.  If  her  resistance 
is  unsuccessful,  it  is  treason  and  rebellion.  But  secession — being 
the  act  of  the  State  in  her  sovereign  capacity  as  a  party  to 
the  compact — is  founded  on  her  reserved  right  of  sovereignty, 
and  results  from  the  dissolution  of  the  compact ;  and  whether 
successful  or  not,  it  is,  in  law  but  the  exercise  of  a  political 
right.  Her  people,  in  defending  her  position,  are  guilty  of 
no  offence,  but  are  in  the  performance  of  the  highest  duty 
of  patriotism  ;  and  those  who  assail  her  by  violence,  in  the 
exercise  of  her  right,  are  guilty  of  wrong  before  the  nations 
of  the  earth,  unless  her  legal  right  be  exercised  in  bad  faith  and 
unjustifiably,  to  the  injury  of  her  associates  in  the  Union. 

Another  objection  to  the  right  of  secession  is,  that  the  remedy 
for  abuses  and  violations  of  the  Constitution  is  prescribed  in  the 
provision  for  amendments. 


22 

But  that  does  not  impair  the  right  to  "  alter  or  abolish  "  a  Gov- 
ernment, and  "to  institute  a  new  Government,"  set  forth  in  the  Dec- 
laration of  Independence.  It  has  reference  to  such  amendments  as 
might  be  found  necessary  by  time  and  experience,  and  which  might 
be  agreed  on,  in  the  regular  action  of  the  Government.  But  it  im 
ports  no  obligation  never  to  abolish  or  abandon  it,  and  never  to 
form  a  now  Government.  The  13th  Article  of  Confederation,  ex- 
pressly declared  that  the  Union  thereby  created  should  be  per- 
petual, and  prohibited  any  alteration  of  the  Articles  except  in  a 
prescribed  mode.  That  is  stronger  in  its  terms  than  the  Article 
relative  to  Amendments  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
which  simply  provides  a  mode  of  making  Amendments;  whereas 
the  former  emphatically  prohibited  any  alteration  except  in  the  mode 
prescribed.  Yet  this  was  disregarded  and  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  formed,  establishing  a  totally  different  Government, 
abolishing  the  old  one  ;  and  all  this,  in  a  mode  entirely  different 
from  that  required  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  against  the 
consent  of  several  of  the*States.  This  was  justified  at  the  time,  on 
the  ground  of  the  high  and  sacred  right  of  the  States  to  alter  or 
abolish  their  Government,  as  we  have  above  shown. 

So  the  State  Constitutions  contain  provisions  prescribing  the 
mode  of  amending  them  ;  but  this  has  never  been  held  to  debar  the 
exercise  of  the  sovereign  right  of  the  people  of  the  State,  to  form 
a  new  Constitution  in  a  different  mode  from  that  prescribed  ;  and 
many  of  the  State  Constitutions  now  existing,  were  formed  in  that 
manner. 

But  it  may  be  impracticable  to  amend  the  Constitution  in  the 
mode  prescribed,  by  reason  of  the  circumstances,  and  the  growth  of 
usurpations ;  or  it  may  have  become  perverted,  to  the  destruction  of 
the  rights  intended  to  be  secured  when  it  was  made,  beyond  remedy 
by  amendment  in  the  mode  prescribed — so  that  the  remedy  by 
amendment  would  be  impracticable  or  inadequate  in  such  cases. 
And  that  is  the  condition  in  which  the  Southern  States  were  placed, 
when  they  were  compelled  to  secede. 

It  is  a  matter  of  history,  that  all  efforts  to  obtain  protection  for 
their  clear  Constitutional  rights,  were  spurned  and  rejected  by  an 
unscrupulous  majority  of  Congress,  with  insult  and  menaces  that 
they  would  consummate  the  outrages  which  were  sought  to  be  pre- 
vented by  proposed  amendments. 

There  was,  therefore,  no  alternative  left  them,  but  to  give  up 
their  most  sacred  rights,  or  take  their  protection  into  their  own 
hands  by  withdrawing  from  a  Union  which  was  to  be  made  the 
instrument  of  their  oppression  and  ruin. 

Having  thus  considered  the  arguments  mainly  relied  on  in  op- 
position to  the  right  of  secession,  let  us  bring  the  theory  which 
denies  the  right,  to  a  practial  test,  by  the  cardinal  principles  of  the 
Constitution. 


23 

If  a  State  have  not  the  right  to  withdraw  from  the  Union  under 
any  circumstances,  she  must  be  bound  to  submit  to  its  power  and 
the  United  States  must  have  the  right  to  coerce  her  to  submission  ; 
and  if  the  United  States  have  not  that  right,  it  must  be  because 
the  State  has  the  right  to  withdraw  ;  for  wherever  there  is  a 
light  there  is  a  remedy.  If  the  withdrawal  be  without  right, 
the  remedy  would  be  to  reduce  her  to  submission  by  force.  If  she 
persisted,  it  would  produce  war,  and  she  could  only  be  kept  in  the 
Union  by  conquest,  and  only  held  in  submission  to  the  authority  of 
the  United  States  by  military  lorco.  She  is  then  reduced  to  the 
condition  of  a  subjugated  State,  and  ceases  to  be  a  member  of  the 
Union  composed  of  equal  States. 

Now  the  Union  formed  by  the  Constitution — and  tlie  only 
Union  that  can  subsist  under  it— was  one  of  equal  sovereign  States. 
It  was  established  "  in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect  Union,  establish 
justice  and  ensure  domestic  tranquility,"  between  its  members.  All 
the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  show  that  equality  of  rights  and 
of  political  condition  is  indispensable  to  its  existence.  But  this 
fundamental  condition  is  utterly  subverted  by  the  necessary  effect 
of  military  coercion ;  for  instead  of  a  co-equal  member  of  the  Union, 
the  State  becomes  a  subjugated  and  degraded  province;  and,  in- 
stead of  her  people  having  a  government  of  their  own  choice  nnd 
resting  upon  their  own  consent,  they  are  held  under  the  forcible 
dominion  of  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 

This  is  the  plain  result  of  the  denial  of  the  right  of  secession, 
and  of  the  assertion  "of  the  right  to  hold  a  State  in  the  Union 
against  her  will.  It  dissolves  the  Union  so  far  as  the  subjugated 
State  is  concerned  as  effectually  as  secession,  and  in  a  manner  that 
would  utterly  prostrate  every  principle  of  American  liberty,  and 
with  consequences  shocking  to  every  feeling  of  patriotism  and  even 
of  humanity. 

It  deposes  the  legitimate  governmental  authorities  of  the  State, 
and  erects,  in  their  place,  a  Government  of  force,  deriving  its  au- 
thority not  from  the  people  of  the  State,  the  only  proper  source  of 
political  power,  but  from  the  arms  of  the  conqueror.  The  State 
Government  is  subverted,  and  the  people  are  held  in  subjection  to  a 
military  despotism,  as  Mr.  Hamilton  said  would  be  the  result  of 
such  a  policy.  The  State  ceases  to  be  one  of  the  free  and  sovereign 
States,  and  as  such  to  form  a  constituent  part  of  the  American 
Union;  and  the  Union  is  dissolved  by  the  destruction  of  her 
proper  political  condition  as  perfectly  as  it  could  have  been  by 
secession,  and  in  a  mode  and  by  means  as  much  more  abhorrent 
to  justice  and  to  American  principles,  as  a  Government  established 
and  sustained  by  force  is  worse  than  one  established  by  the  people 
themselves  ;  which — though  unwise,  it  may  be,  in  its  organization — 
yet  rests  on  the  solid  foundation  of  the  consent  of  those  for  whose 


-i- 

happinesss  it   is   instituted  and  by    whose    consent  alone   it   can 
subsist. 

But  if  there  could  be  a  reasonable  doubt  on  this  point,  it  is  re- 
moved by  the  history  of  the  Constitution,  and  the  declarations  of 
its  advocates  when  it  was  submitted  for  ratification. 

It  was  a  material  defect  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation,  that 
there  was  no  authority  to  enforce  the  acts  of  Congress  against  the 
States.  It  was  fully  admitted,  by  the  fathers  of  the  Constitution, 
that  it  would  be  an  anomaly  in  a  Government  composed  of  sov- 
ereign States,  to  attempt  to  compel  obedience  to  the  laws  by  force 
employed  against  the  States  in  their  political  capacity ;  because 
it  would  necessarily  result  in  war  againSt  the  power  of  the  State, 
which  would  dissolve  the  Union;  Mr.  Hamilton  said — "  the  first 
war  of  this  kind  would  probably  terminate  in  the  dissolution  of 
the  Union" — and  further — "such  a  scheme,  if  practicable  at  all, 
would  instantly  degenerate  into  a  military  despotism;  but  it  will  be 
found  in  every  light  impracticable." — Federalist,  No.  16,  page 
72,  T3. 

Mr.  Madison  says — "As  it  is  a  solecism  in  theory,  so  in  prac- 
tice, it  is  subversion  of  the  order  and  end  of  civil  polity,  by  sub- 
stituting violence  in  the  place  of  law,  or  the  destructive  coercion 
of  the  sword  in  place  of  the  mild  and  salutary  coercion  of  the 
magistracy" — Ibid,  No.  20,  page  92. 

It  being  wholly  inadmissible  to  coerce  the'  States  by  force  of 
arms,  the  plan  proposed  by  the  Constitution  was  to  operate  upon 
the  individual  citizens  of  the  State  "through  the  medium  of  the 
courts^  by  giving  the  Federal  Government  the  same  advantage  for 
securing  obedience  to  its  authority,  which  is  enjoyed  by  the  Gov- 
ernment of  each  State." — Ibid,  Nos.  15  and  27.  And  this  in  the 
whole  extent  of  the  power  of  coercion  proposed  to  be  given  to 
the  Government — £he  power  to  compel  obedience  from  individ- 
uals by  process  of  law. 

So  long  as  the  resistance  to  the  acts  of  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment was  confined  to  mere  individuals,  the  authority  of  the  United 
States  might  extend  to  them,  to  compel  them  to  obedience,  in  the 
modes  reeognized  by  law.  But  when  a  State  withdraws  from  the 
Union  and  resumes  her  position  as  an  independent  sovereign 
State,  she  is  in  the  same  condition,  at  least,  as  that  she  occupied 
before  the  Constitution  was  ratified.  Her  citizens  are  bound  to 
support  her  government,  under  penalties  for  disloyalty  to  be  en- 
forced by  the  authority  of  the  State  ;  which  places  them  in  the 
position  of  refusing  obedience  to  the  authority  of  the  United 
States,  not  as  individuals,  but  under  the  command  and  sanction  of 
the  State,  in  whom  the  original  and  inherent  sovereignty  resides, 
the    State  in  her    sovereign    character,    in  virtue  of  her  reserved 


25 
• 
right,  has  asserted  her  paramount  authority  over  them,  and  their 
action  is  in  obedience  to  that  authority.  There  arises  then,  a 
conflict  between  the  State  in  her  sovereign  capacity,  and  the 
United  States ;  and  to  proceed  against  an  individual  acting  under 
such  sactions,  would  be  a  manifest  violation  of  the  spirit  of  the 
Constitution.  But  the  controversy  is  between  the  State  in  her 
political  capacity  and  the  Government  of  the  United  States. 
This  is  clear ;  because,  if  the  United  States  attempt  to  enforce 
her  authority  over  the  individual,  it  is  met  by  the  protection  of  the 
State,  and  a  conflict  of  forces  must  be  the  result.  It  is  not,  there- 
fore, within  the  reason  which  conferred  the  power  upon  the  United 
States. 

Mr.  Hamilton  pointedly  refers  to  this  contingency  in  No.  16, 
Federalist,  as  follows — 

"  If  opposition  to  the  national  government  should  arise  from 
the  disorderly  conduct  of  refractory  or  seditious  individuals,  it 
could  be  overcome  by  the  same  means  which  are  employed  against 
the  same  evil  under  the  State  Government."  *  *  *  "As  to 
those  partial  commotions  and  insurections,  which  sometimes  dis- 
quiet society,  from  the  intrigues  of  an  inconsiderable  faction,  or 
from  sudden  or  occassional  ill-humors,  that  do  not  infect  the  great 
body  of  the  community,  the  General  Government  could  command 
more  extensive  resources,  for  the  suppression  of  disturbances  of 
that  kind,  than  would  be  in  the  poAver  of  a  single  member. 
And  as  to  these  mortal  feuds  which,  in  certain  conjunctures,  spread 
a  conflagration  through  the  whole  nation,  or  through  a  very  large 
proportion  of  it,  proceeding,  either  from  weighty  causes  of  discon- 
tent, given  by  the  Government,  or  from  the  contagion  of  some 
violent  popular  paroxysm,  they  do  not  fall  within  any  ordinary 
rules  of  calculation.  When  they  happen,  they  commonly  amount 
to  revolutions  and  dismemberments  of  empire." 

It  is  abundantly  clear  that  the  right  of  coercion  against  one  of 
the  States,  was  never  asserted  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution, 
nor  contemplated  in  its  ratification  'by  the  States  ;  but  was  ex- 
pressly disavowed  by  both.  It  is  utterly  repugnant  to  the  genius 
and  spirit  of  the  Constitution.  Indeed  the  total  inadmissibility  ' 
of  employing  force  against  States — the  very  essence  of  whose 
Union  was  peace  and  concord,  unity  of  feeling  and  of  interest- — 
was  one  of  the  reasons  most  strongly  urged  for  the  adoption  of  a 
system  to  act  upon  individuals,  as  we  have  above  seen ;  and  the 
same  reason  applies,  in  all  its  force,  to  the  Union  under  the  Con- 
stitution. 

Mr.  Hamilton,  in  the  Convention  of  ratification  of  New  York — ■ 
speaking  of  the    proposition  to  coerce  the'  States  to  comply  with 
the  requisitions  for  revenue,  under  the  Articles  of  Confederation — 
4 


expressed  his  objections  to  it  in  the  following  language,  which  is 
applicable,  with  equal  force,  to  the  coercion  of  States  under  the 
present  Constitution : 

"It  has  been  observed,  to  coerce  the  States  is  one  of  the  maddest 
projects  that  was  ever  devised.  A  failure  of  compliance  will  never 
be  confined  to  a  single  State.  This  being  the  case,  can  we  sup- 
pose it  wise  to  hazard  a  civil  war?  Suppose  Massachusetts  or 
any  large  State  should  refuse,  and  Congress  should  attempt  to 
compel  them ;  would  they  not  have  influence  to  procure  assistance, 
especially  from  those  States  who  are  in  the  same  situation  as 
themselves  ?  What  picture  does  this  idea  present  to  our  view  ? 
A  complying  State  at  war  with  a  non-complying  State  :  Congress 
marching  the  troops  of  one  State  into  the  bosom  of  another :  this 
State  collecting  auxiliaries  and  forming  perhaps  a  majority  against 
its  federal  head.  Here  is  a  nation  at  war  with  itself.  Can  any 
reasonable  man  be  well  disposed  tmvard  a  government  luhich  makes 
war  and  carnage  the  only  means  of  supporting  itself?  Every 
such  Avar  must  involve  the  innocent  with  the  guilty.  This  single 
consideration  should  be  sufficient  to  dispose  every  peaceable  citizen 
against  such  a  government." — 2.  Elliott's  Debates,  232. 

In  the  Convention  which  formed  the  Constitution,  he  said — upon 
the  proposition  of  Mr.  Randolph  to  give  the  power  to  the  Federal 
Government  to  use -force  against  a  State — that  "  it  would  produce 
a  dissolution  of  the  Union." — 2.  Ma.dison  papers,  881. 

And  these  are  the  declarations,  of  the  great  master  spirt  of  the 
advocates  of  latitudinous  powers  in  the  Federal  Government. 

Mr.  Madison  said  upon  the  same  proposition — "that  the  more 
he  reflected  on  the  use  of  force,  the  more  he  doubted  the  practica- 
bility, the  justice  and  the  efficiency  of  it,  when  applied  to  the  peo- 
ple collectively,  and  not  individually.  A  Union  of  the  States,  con- 
taining such  an  ingredient,  seemed  to  provide  for  its  own  destruc- 
tion. The  use  of  force  against  a  State  would  look  more  like  a 
declaration  of  ivar,  than  an  infliction  of  punishment,  and  would 
probably  be  considered  by  the  party  attacked  as  a  dissolution 
of  all  previous  compacts  by  whieh  it  might  be  bound."  And,  on 
his  motion,  the  proposition  was  unanimously  postponed' — 2.  Mad- 
ison papers,  761.     And  it  was  not  afterwards  revived. 

It  is,  therefore,  impossible  to  maintain  the  right  of  coercion 
against  a  State  without  turning  a  deaf  ear  to  the  history  of  the , 
Constitution,  and  destroying  the  very  foundation  on  which  the 
Union  rests.  And  it  must  follow,  that  if  there  is  no  right  to 
compel  a  State  to  remain  in  the  Union,  there  can  be  no  right  to 
demand  her  continuance  in  it  against  her  will ;  and,  hence,  that  in 
point  of  political  power,  she  has  the  right  to  secede  from  it. 

Upon  these    considerations,    it  is  confidently    submitted  to  the 


27 

dispassionate  judgment  of  mankind,  that  the  right  of  secession,  as 
exercised  by  the  several  Southern  States  of  the  late  American 
Union,  was  a  clear  and  unquestionable  sovereign  right  apper- 
taining to  those  States. 

We  come  now  to  examine  the  grounds  of  justification  for  the 
secession  of  the  Southern  States. 

In  order  to  a  just  understanding  of  this  question  it  is  necessary 
to  take  a  cursory  view  of  the  state  of  political  parties,  as  they 
affected  the  condition  of  this  country  at  the  time  of  the  dissolu- 
tion of  the  Union. 

It  was  not  long  after  the  Government  of  the  United  States  went 
into  operation  under  the  Constitution,  before  a  strong  party 
sprang  up,  claiming  for  it,  powers  wholly  inconsistent  with  its  true 
spirit  and  intent,  and  especially  with  the  reserved  rights  of  the 
States.  This  party  numbered  many  men  of  eminent  talents,  who 
had  borne  a  prominent  part  in  the  war  of  the  Revolution,  whose  in- 
fluence gave  to  their  doctrines  great  force  among  the  people, 
and  enabled -them  to  impress  their  views  upon  the  character  of 
the  Government  by  various  legislative  acts  of  doubtful  constitu- 
tionality. 

From  natural  causes,  and  under  the  operation  of  these 
measures  from  time  to  time  enacted,  it  became  apparent,  that  the 
chief  interests  and  pursuits  of  the  States  were  different,  and,  for 
the  most  part,  sectional ;  the  one  section  being  commercial  and 
manufacturing,  and  the  other  agricultural ;  the  former  being  com- 
posed of  the  Eastern  and  Northern  States,  and  latter  of  the 
Southern  and  Western  States. 

These  measures  and  the  doctrines  on  which  some  of  them  were 
founded,  gave  rise  to  the  party  above  referred  to,  known  as  the 
Federal  party,  which  had  its  opponent  in  what  was  called  the 
Democratic  or  Republican  party  ;  the  former  claiming  large  and 
extensive  powers  for  the  Federal  Government,  and  the  latter 
seeking  to  confine  it  within  the  strict  limits  of  the  terms  of  the 
Constitution.  The  strength  of  the  Federal  party '  lay  mainly  in  ' 
the  Eastern  and.  Northern  section,  while  that  of  the  other  lay 
mostly  in  the  Southern  and  Western  section. 

In. the  progress  of  the  Government,  the  latter  became  the  dom- 
inant party ;  and  finally,  and  especially  after  the  war  of  1812 
with  Great  Britain,  the  Federal  party  became  so  unpopular,  that 
its  prospects  of  attaining  the  ascendant  again  were  almost  hope- 
less. But  the  debt  of  that  war  gave  rise  to  measures  of  finance 
and  revenue  which,  in  a  manner,  gave  countenance  to  their  politi- 
cal doctrines,  while  they  contributed  greatly  to  their  pecuniary 
benefit  in  promoting  their  commerce  and  manufactures,  to  the  de- 
triment  of  the    other   section.     This    revived    the    hopes    of  the 


28     . 

Federal  party.  Their  politicians  "were  encouraged  in  their  hopes 
to  attain  to  the  honors  and  power  of  the  Government,  and  their 
people  rejoiced  in  the  prospect  of  profit  and  emolument,  hy  the 
action  of  the  Government,  giving  advantages  to  their  interests 
and  pursuits  which  could  not  he  enjoyed  by  the  other  section, 
hy  reason  of  the  nature  of  their  pursuits.  Having  the.  strong  mo- 
tives of  the  lust  of  power,  and  the  lust  of  gain  to  stimulate  them, 
they  entered  upon  deep-laid  schemes  to  recover  from  their  fall, 
and  to  secure  both" these  ends. 

But  the  advantage  which  they  derived  from  the  unequal  action 
of  these  measures  in  their  favor,  was  not  sufficient  to  assure  the 
success  of  their  purposes.  The  South  and  the  West  were  strongly 
opposed  to  their  political  principles,  and  to  the  policy  of  the 
measures  which  operated  so  unjustly  to  their  own  pecuniary  ad- 
vantage. It  would  be  with '  difficulty  that  they  could  obtain  suc- 
cess for  their  party,  even  in  the  States  then  composing  the  Uuion ; 
but  this  success  was  utterly  hopeless,  if  new  States  were  added  to 
the  Union  composed  of  the  territories  and  public  domain  then  be- 
longing to  the  United  States.  It  was  from  that  quarter  alone, 
with  the  exception  of  Maine,  that  new  States  could  be  added  to  the 
Union  ;  and  it  was  perfectly  evident  that  such  States — having  the 
same  interests  and  entertaining  the  same  political  principles  as 
their  neighboring  States,  and  all  being  agricultural  and  injurious- 
ly affected  by  the  policy  which  operated  to  the  benefit  of  the 
Eastern  and  Northern  section — would,  in  all  human  probability, 
be  opposed  to  the  politicians  and  policy  of  the  Federal  party. 

They,  therefore,  conceived  the  design  to  prevent  the  admission 
of  any  new  States  into  the  Union  from  that  quarter.  The  same 
motive  had  caused  their  opposition  to  the  purchase  of  Louisiana, 
and  subsequently  caused  the  fierce  war  which  they  waged  against 
the  annexation  of  Texas.  But  it  would  never  do  to  avow  such  a 
purpose  openly,  since  the  admission  of  new  States  was  expressly 
contemplated  in  the  Constitution;  and  this  Western  and  Southern 
territory  was  the  section  from  which  they  were  to  come.  It  was, 
therefore,  necessary  to  disguise  their  design  under  some  plausible 
pretext;  and,  with  characteristic  Jesuitism,  they  seized  upon 
philanthropjfy  for  the  purpose. 

African  slavery  was  then  a  part  of  the  domestic  policy  of  the 
these  South-Western  and  Southern  States  ;  and  it  would, '  at  that 
time,  have  been  absolutely  ruinous  to  new  States  to  be  made  of 
the  territory  adjacent  to  them,  to  be  deprived  of  slave  labor  in 
their  agricultural  pursuits,  and  to  be  admitted  only  on  condition 
that  it  was  excluded  within  their  limits.  Hence  to  require  such  a 
condition  was  in  fact  to  exclude  the  State  from  the  Union ;  and 
that  was  the  real  design.     It  was  believed,  by  the  contrivers  of 


29 

this  plot,  that  such  was  the  prejudice  men  existing  in  the  senti- 
ment of  most  of  the  civilized  nations  of  the  earth,  and  even  in 
this  country,  against  negro  slavery,  that  their  odious  motive  would 
be  concealed  under  the  cloak  of  benevolence  and  philanthropKy, 
whilst  they  secured  the  power  and  honors  of  the  Government, 
and  employed  them  for  their  emolument.       ^ 

The  first  State  which  applied  for  admission  after  these  purposes 
were  conceived,  was  the  State  of  Missouri ;  and  this  furnished 
the  first  opportunity  to  the  party,  to  put  into  practice  the  scheme 
which  they  had  planned.  All  their  strength  was  accordingly  put 
forth  to  prevent  the  admission  of  the  State,  except  upon  the  con- 
dition of  exclusion  of  slavery  within  her  limits — a  condition  des- 
structive  to  the  rights  of  a  large  number  of  her  people,  ruinous 
to  her  settled  policy  and  interests,  and  of  course  wholly  imprac- 
ticable to  be  accepted;  and  a  flagrant  violation  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, as  has  since  been  adjudged  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States.  Yet  they  urged  it  with  all  their  power  and  with 
unyielding  obstinacy;  and  the  memorable  struggle  ensued  which 
brought  the  Union  to  the  verge  of  destruction.  They  persisted 
in  their  demand  until  the  destruction  of  the  Union  or  the  rejection 
of  the  condition,  was  the  inevitable  alternative;  and,  even  under 
these  awful  circumstances,  they  only  agreed  to  recede  from  their 
position  in  the  particular  case,  by  obtaining  another  condition,  de- 
claring as  the  settled  policy  of  the  Grovernment,  in  effect,  that 
slavery  should  never  exist  in  any  of  the  Western  States  to 
be  created  out  of  the  territory  in  that  section — a  principle  which 
they  believed  would  exclude  from  the  Union  a  large  number  of 
agricultural  States  to  be  made  out  of  the  Western  territory, 
whose  interests  and  political  principles  would  be  opposed  to  their 
own.  But  for  this  unconscientious  advantage,  it  is  plain  that  these 
wicked  men  would  then  have  dissolved  the  Union. 

They,  therefore,  agreed  to  admit  Missouri,  under  the  belief,  that 
the  condition,  which  they  had  succeeded  in  obtaining,  would  ac- 
complish their  object  of  excluding  all  other  Western  agricultural 
territories,  which,  in  the  course  of  a  few  years,  would  apply  for 
admission  as  States,  and  which  would  be,  for  the  most  part,  in  the 
situation  of  Missouri  in  regard  to  slavery,  and  so  deeply  interested 
'in  slave  labor  that  they  would. not  accept  admission  with  its  exclu- 
sion ;  and  hence  that  they  would  not  be  admitted. 

This  was  the  effect  which  they  thought  would  most  probably  be 
produced  by  the  arrangement.  But  if  this  failed,  they  expected  to 
obtain  the  end  desired  by  them,  by  indirection  and  by  the  opera- 
tion of  this  policy  ;  which  was,  that  the  Legislative  declaration 
excluding  slavery,  under  the  so  called  Missouri  Compromise,  from 
these  Western  territories,  would  prevent  the  immigration  there  of 


30 

* 
people  of  the  slave-holding  State?,  with  their  slaves,  and  that  the 
public  domain  would  be  open  to  the  people  of  the  Eastern  and 
Northern  States  for  settlement — thereby  enabling  them  to  monopo- 
lise the  rich  lands  of  that  region  to  their  pecuniary  emolument, 
and  to  people  them  with  a  population  of  their  own  political  opin- 
ions, who  would  coalesce  with  them  and  enable  them  to  hold  the 
political  power,  and  to  control  the  policy,  of  the  country,  in  favor 
of  their  own  doctrines  and  schemes. 

Having  gained  these  important  advantages  over  the  constitu- 
tional rights  of  the  South,  they  were  willing  to  await  their  develop- 
ment, confident  of  ultimately  reaping  the  fruits  of  such  well  laid 
plans. 

John  Q.  Adams,  a  leading  man  of  their  section,  was  then  Secre- 
tary of  State;  and,  being  thus  "in  the  line  of  safe  precedents," 
was  expected  to  become  President  of  the  United  States,  in  a 
few  years  ;  by  which  time  all  their  schemes  of  power  and  emolument 
would  be  ripe,  and  under  whose  administration  they  would  receive 
their  full  fruition.  Meanwhile  a  political  calm  pervaded  the  coun- 
try, which  terminated  in  the  election  of  Mr.  Adams  in  1825. 
True  to  his  section  and  to  his  party  instincts,  he  did  not  disappoint 
their  expectation  ;  and  during  his  administration,  measures  were 
passed,  giving  benefits  and  advantages  to  the  interests  and  pur- 
suits of  that  section,  to  the  utmost  of  their  demands,  and  operating 
most  unjustly  and  oppressively  to  the  interests  and  pursuits  of  the 
South  and  West.  These  measures  aroused  a  deep  feeling  of  oppo- 
sition in  the  latter  section  ;  and  this,  in  connection  with  the  fraudu- 
lent combination  by  which  it  was  believed  Mr.  Adams  was  chosen 
President,  by  the  House  of  Representatives,  and  the  strong-govern- 
ment doctrines  which  characterized  his  administration,  rendered 
•him  so  odious,  that  he  was  overwhelmingly  defeated  in  1828.  He 
and  his  party  were  driven  from  power,  and  appeared  to  be  prostra- 
ted, to  rise  no  more. 

During  this  period  of  their  realization  of  the  power  and  emolu- 
ments of  the  Government,  there  was  no  necessity  to  agitate  ques- 
tions to  produce  discord  and  confusion.  But  this  was  quickly 
changed  when  they  were  expelled  from  the  power  and  patronage 
of  the  Government.  With  a  perseverance  known  Only  to  a  thirst 
for  political  power,  stimulated  by  the  lust  of  gain,  this  party  aroused 
itself  from  its  prostration,  and  armed  itself  for  a  new  and  terrific 
conflict,  a  death  struggle,  to  rule  or  ruin  the  country  •  and  the 
weapon  chosen  for  this  warfare  was  the  same  slavery  question, 
which  had  been  so  valuable  to  them  in  their  previous  efforts.  It 
had  lain  dormant  while  they  were  in  power  reaping  the  emoluments 
of  a  Government  perverted  to  their  profit ;  but  now  in  their  fallen 
and  degraded  state — employing  it  always  as  a  means  to  power  and 
gain,  and  never  as  an  end — it  became  necessary  to  brandish  it  again 


31 

in  all  its  horrors,  in  order  to  rise  again.     Mr.  Adams  was  sent  to 
Congress,  the  chosen  man  of  the  party  ;    and,   reckless  of  decency 
and  of  the  dignity  which  his  recent  position  would  have  suggested 
to  a  man  of  juster  sensibilities,  he  quickly  began  the  agitation  of 
the  slavery  question,  with  all  the  violence  which  disappointed  per- 
sonal ambition  and  thirst  for  power,  the  prostration  of  his  sectional 
party  and  the  defeat' of  their  schemes  for  ill  gotten  gain,  could  give 
to^a  man  of  untiring  energy,  of  great  abilities  and  of  the  deepest 
malignity.     His  effort  was  to  stab,  in  its  vitals,  that  section  which 
had  directed  against  him  the  blow  that  had.  felled  and  degraded 
him,   and  was  about  to  deprive  his  section  of  its  unconscientious 
gains  ;  and  he  scrupled  at  nothing  which  he  could  use  as  a  means 
of  wreaking  his  revenge.     Incessantly  did  he  exert  himself,  by  ap- 
peals to  false  sympathy  and  to  hypocritical  philanthrophy,  and  by 
ingenious  sophistries,  to  arouse  the  spirit  of  fanaticism  in  behalf  of 
the  happy  and  contented  slaves  of  the   South.     At  first  his  efforts 
met  with  no  favor.     This   but  incited  him  to   greater   exertions. 
He  found   coadjutors  in  Congress.     His  spirit  was  communicated. ' 
to  leading  men  throughout  his  section,  and  to  many  in  the  West 
who  had  emigrated  from  that  section  or  who  had.  been  corrupted 
by  his  Jesuitism.     It  was  then  found  that   the   Missouri    Compro- 
mise had  worked  its  office,   and  would  add  to  the  Northern  and 
Eastern  faction,  the  new  States  to  be  made  of  Western  territory,  by 
preventing   the  immigration  of  Southern  men  with  their  slaves 
there,    and  that  those  States  would  ultimately  be  added  to  their 
party  ;  and  hence  it  was  no  longer  necessary  to  oppose  the  admis- 
sion of  new  States  from  that  region.     The  party  increased  in  num- 
bers from  year  to  year,   until  all  the  Eastern  and  North-Eastern 
States,  and  a  large  majority  of  the  Western   States — which   were 
peopled  for  the  most  part  by  men  of  Eastern  and  Northern   birth 
and  by  foreigners — were  enlisted  under  its  banner.     They  avowed 
themselves  prepared  to  trample  under  foot  the  principles   of  the 
Constitution  ;  their  Legislatures  passed  acts  deliberately  annulling 
a  positive  provision  of  the  Constitution  for  the   rendition  of  fugi- 
tive slaves,  and  setting  at  nought  the  act  of   Congress  passed  in 
furtherance  of  that  provision  ;  and  these  outrageous  acts  they  per- 
sisted in  carrying  out  even  by  force  ;  and  in  the  Presidential  elec- 
tion  of   1S60,    the   votes   of  those   States,   constituting  a   large 
majority  of    the   States    of  the  Union,   were   cast  for  Abraham 
Lincoln,   who  was   openTy   pledged   to   use    all    the    powers   of 
the  Governmct  to  put  an  end  to  slave  property  in  the  States,   and 
to  prevent  its  existence  in  the  Territories — rights  clearly  recognised 
in  the  Constitution  ;   adjudged  by  the  Supreme  Court  to  be  guarantied 
by    the    Constitution;    considdred  vital  to  the  welfare  and  happiness  of 
fifteen  States  of  the  Union — rights,   without  the   recognition  of  lohich 
in  the  Constitution  the  Union  could  never  have  been  formed. 


32 

Throughout  all  the  stages  of  these  efforts,  the  Southern  States 
solemnly  warned  their  authors,  of  their  inevitable  result,  if  pressed 
by  them  ;  and  by  all  that  was  dear  in  private  right,  all  that  was 
sacred  under  the  solemn  sanctions  of  the  Constitution — by  all  that 
was  beloved  and  venerated  in  the  glorious  institutions  which  were 
established  by  our  ancestors  and  committed  to  us  as  a  precious 
boon  to  be  kept  in  its  virtue  and  purity,  and  transmitted  to  pos- 
terity— in  all  the  forms  af  reasoning,  oi  entreaty  and  of  expostula- 
tion, these  men  were  implored  to  desist  from  thqjr  efforts,  and  not 
to  force  the  South  to  the  dread  necessity  of  dissolving  that  Union 
which  was  their  pride  and  their  glory.  These  solemn  warnings 
were  only  met  by  insult  and  defiance  ;  and  steadily  the  enemies  of 
the  Constitution  and  of  the  liberties  of  the  South,  advanced  to  the 
consummation  of  their  purposes,  until  in  the  language  of  Mr.  Seward, 
their  chief  leader,  on  the  eve  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  election,  they  were 
"in  the  last  stage  of  the  conflict,  before  the  great  triumphal 
inauguration  of  this  policy  into  tlie  Government  of  the  United 
Statee." 

In  order  to  estimate  the  danger  threatened  to  these  States  by 
the  accession  of  Abraham  Lincoln  to  the  power  of  the  Federal 
Government,  and  by  their  remaining  under  his  dominion,  it  is 
proper  to  set  forth  the  principles  and  designs  upon  which  he  and 
his  party  were  to  come  into  power,  and  the  especial  object  of  their 
elevation.  This  is  written  in  characters  that  it  would  have  been 
madness  to  disregard. 

In  the  authorized  publication  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  speeches,  circula- 
ted during  his  presidential  canvass,  the  speeches  from  which  the 
the  following  extracts  are  made,  will  be  found. 

"  I  believe  this  Government  cannot  endure  permanently  half  slave  and 
half  free.  I  do  not  expect  the  Union  to  be  dissolved.  I  do  not 
expect  the  house  to  fall.  I  do  expect  it  will  cease  to  be  divided. 
It  will  become  all  one  thing  or  all  the  other.  Either  the  opponents  of 
slavery  will  arrest  the  further  spread  of  it,  and  place  it  where  the 
public  mind  shall  rest  in  the  belief  that  it  is  in  the  course  of 
ultimate  extinction,  or  its  advocates  will  push  it  forward  till  il  shall 
become  alike  lawful  in  all  the  States." 

Commenting  on  this,  he  afterwards  said — "I  only  said  what 
I  expected  would  take  place.  I  did  not  even  say  that  I  desired  that 
slavery  shall  be  put  in  the  course  of  ultimate  extinction.  I  do 
now,  however  ;  so  there  need  be  no  longer  any  difficulty  about 
that." 

"  If  I  were  in  Congress  and  a  vote  should  come  up  on  a  question 
whether  slavery  should  be  prohibited  in  a  new  Territory,  in  spite  of 
the  Bred  Scott  decison,  I  would  vote  that  it  should." 

"  What  I  do  say  is,  that  no  man  is  good  enough  to  govern 


33 

another  man  without  the  other  man's  consent.  /  say  this  is  t/ie  leading 
principle,  the  sheet  anchor  of  American  Republicanism." 

After  quoting  a  passage  from  the  Declaration  of  Independence* 
he  says — "  I  have  quoted  so  much  at  this  time  merely  to  show,  that 
according  to  our  ancient  faith,  the  powers  of  government  are  derived 
from  the  consent  of  the  governed.  Now,  the  relation  of  master 
and  slave  is,  pro  tanto,  a  violation  of  this  principle.  The  master 
not  only  governs  the  slave,  without  his  consent,  but  he  governs 
him  by  a  set  of  rules  altogether  different  from  those  which  he  pre- 
cribes  himself.  Allow  all  the  governed  an  equal  voice  in-  the  govern- 
ment J  and  that ,  and  that  only,  is  self-government." 

Mr.  Seward  declared  the  principles  and  purposes  of  the  party, 
as  follows — speaking  of  the  antagonism  between  free  labor  and 
slave  labor,  he  said — 

"  It  is  an  irrepressible  conflict,  between  the  opposing  and 
enduring  forces,  and  it  means  that  the  United  States  must  and  will, 
sooner  or  later,  become  entirely  a  slave-holding  nation,  or  entirely 
a  free-labor  nation.  Either  the  cotton  and  rice  fields  of  South 
Carolina  and  the  sugar  plantations  of  Louisiana  will  ultimately  be 
tilled  by  free  labor,  and  Charleston  and  New  Orleans  become 
marts  for  legitimate  merchandise  alone,  or  else  the  rye-fields  and 
wheat  fields  of  Massachusetts  and  New  York  must  again  be  sur- 
rendered by  their  farmers  to  slave  culture,  and  to  the  production 
of  slaves,  and  Boston  and  New  York  become  once  more  a  market 
for   trade  in  the  bodies  and  souls  of  men." 

Again,  he  says — "What  a  commentary  upon  the  history  of  man 
is  the  fact,  that  eighteen  years  after  the  death  of  John  Quincy 
Adams,  the  people  have  for  their  standard-bearer,  Abrahuu  Lincoln, 
confessing  the  obligations  of  THE  HIGHER  law,  which  the  sage  of 
Quincy  proclaimed,  and  contending  for  weal  or  woe,  for  life  or  death, 
in  the  irrepressible  conflict  between  freedom  and  slavery.  I  desire  only 
to  say  that  we  aee  in  the  last  stage  of  the  conflict,  before 

THE  GREAT  TRIUMPHAL  INAUGURATION  OF  THIS  POLICY  INTO  THE  GOV- 
ERNMENT of  the  United  States." 

Speaking  of  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  the  case  of 
Dred  Scott,  he  says — 

"  The  people  of  the  United  States  never  can,  and  they  never 
will,  accept  principles  so  unconstitutional  and  so  abhorrent. 
Never — never.  Let  the  Court  recede.  Whether  it  recedes  or  not, 
we  shall  reorganize  the  Court,  and  thus  reform  its  political  senti- 
ments and  practices." 

"It  is  written  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  in  violation 
of  the  divine  law,  that  we  shall  surrender  the  fugitive  slave.  You 
blush  not  at  these  things  because  they  are  familiar  as  household 
words." 


H 

Mr.  Chase,  a  leading  man  of  the  party,  andjaow  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury,  proclaimed  the  same  views — he  said : 

"We  feel,  therefore,  that  all  legal  distinction  between  individuals  sft&e 
same  community,  founded  on  any  such  circumstances  as  color,  o?-igin  and 
the  like,  a  e  hostile  to  the  genius  of  our  institutions,  and  incompatible 
with  the  true  theory  of  American  liberty.  Slavery  and  oppression 
must  cease  or  American  liberty  must  perish." 

"I  embrace,  with  pleasure,  this  opportunity  of  declaring  my 
disapprobation  of  that  clause  of  the  Constitution  which  denies  to 
a  portion  of  the  colored  people  the  right  of  suffrage." 

"For  myself,  I  am  ready  to  renew  my  pledge,  and  I  will 
venture  to  speak  in  behalf  of  my  co-workers,  that  we  will  go  straight  on, 
without  faltering  or  wavering,  until  every  vestige  of  oppression  shall 
be  erased  from  the  statute-books — untU  the  sun,  in  all  its  journey  from 
the  utmost  Eastern  horizon  though  the  mid-heaven,  till  he  sinks  behind 
the   Western  bed,  shall  not  behold  the  foot  print  of  a  single 

SLAVE  IN  ALL  OUR  BROAD  AND  GLORIOUS  LAND." 

The  seventh  resolution  of  the  Chicago  Convention,  which  nomi- 
nated Mr.  Lincoln,  sets  forth  the  doctrines  of  the  party  in  these 
words — 

"  7 .  That  the  new  dogma,  that  the  Constitution  of  its  own 
force,  carries  slavery  into  the  territories  of  the  United  States,  is 
a  dangerous  political  heresy,  at  variance  with  the  explicit  provisions 
of  that  instrument  itself,  with  contemporaneous  exposition,  and 
with  legislative  and  judicial  precedent ;  is  revolutionary  in  its  ten- 
dency, and  subversive  of  the  peace  and  harmony  of  the  country." 

And  this  is  said  with  reference  to  a  solemn  decision  of  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  which  is  treated  as  a  mere 
dogma,  and  denounced  as  a  political  heresy  entitled  to  no  force  with 
the  authorities  about  to  take  upon  themselves  the  administration  of 
the  Government  of  the  United  States!  And  what  makes  it  still 
more  flagrant  is,  that  it  comes  from  the  leaders  of  a  party  which 
had  always  so  strenuously  asserted  the  binding  force  of  the  deci- 
sions of  the  Supreme  Court  upon  questions  relating  to  the  powers  of 
the  Government! 

The  advocates  and  party  press  throughout  the  country,  which 
supported  Mr.  Lincoln,  proclaimed  the  same  principles  and  pur- 
poses, as  the  ground  on  which  he  was  supported ;  and  after  his 
election,  they,  with  one  accord,  rejoiced  that  the  voice  of  the  people 
had  crowned  their  efforts  with  success,  and  invested  them  with  the 
high  duty  of  prostrating  the  guaranties  of  the  Constitution. 

While  these  principles  and  designs  were  proclaimed  in  the  presi- 
dential contest,  the  Southern  States  again  solemnly  warned  the 
advocates  of  them,  that  they  could  never  submit  to  a  Government 
administered  with  such  purposes,  and  that  a  dissolution  of  the 
Union  would  be  the  neeessary  result  of  the  aeeession  of  Mr.  Lin- 


35 

coin,  unless  adequate  guaranties  were  given  for  the  protection  of 
their  rights.  Many  of  them  thought  the  prospect  of  obtaining 
such  guaranties,  hopeless  ;  and  that  the  election  of  Mr.  Lincoln, 
upon  the  declaration  of  principles  and  purposes  on  which  he  was 
elected,  was  the  proclamation  of  a  revolution  in  the  Government ; 
and  that  it  was  their  duty  to  act  promotly  for  their  own  protection, 
and  withdraw  in  their  sovereign  capacities,  from  the  Union. 
Others  were  reluctant  to  take  that  step  until  every  effort  to  obtain 
security  had  been  exhausted,  or  until  the  administration  of  Mr. 
Lincoln  should  show,  bv  some  overt  act,  that  the  avowed  designs 
of  his  party  were  to  be  carried  into  execution. 

Acting  on  the  latter  view,  the  resolutions  of  Mr.  Crittenden  were 
introduced  into  the  Senate  in  December,  1860.  These  resolutions 
demanded  nothing  but  the  clear  and  unquestionable  rights  of  the 
Southern  States  under  the  Constitution,  and  conceded  much  of 
principle  and  settled  right  on  their  part,  which  nothing  but  a  deep 
reverence  for  the  Union  and  a  fervent  desire  to  prevent  its  dissolu- 
tion— if  that  could  be  done  consistently  with  their  indispensable 
rights — could  have  reconciled  them  to  yield.  Among  these  con- 
cessions, was  the  constitutional  right — which  had  been  adjudged  by 
the  Supreme  Court  and  was  therefore  settled — of  taking  their 
slaves  to  the  Territories  of  the  United  States,  north  of  36  deg.  30 
min. ;  which  was  proposed  to  be  surrendered  without  the  surrender 
of  any  settled  right  or  constitutional  privilege  on  the  part  of  the 
Northern  States,  and  without  any  equivalent  to  the  South.  These 
resolutions — which,  all  just  minds  must  admit,  evince,  in  a  high 
degree,  the  spirit  of  concession  and  self-sacrifice  which  animated 
the  Southern  States,  in  order  to  save  the  Union — were  referred  to 
a  committee  of  thirteen,  composed  of  members  representing  the 
three  parties  in  the  country,  Republicans,  Conservatives  and 
Secessionists.  The  two  last — among  whom  was  the  President  of 
the  Confederate  States — expressed  their  willingness  to  accept  the 
settlement  proposed,  if  the  first  would  accede  to  it ;  for  without 
the  support  of  them  and  of  their  party,  it  would  be  useless,  since  it 
was  obvious  that  the  adjustment  would  be  nugatory,  without  the 
sanction  of  the  party  which  they  represented.  But  on  the  22d 
December,  1860,  they  declared  that  "  these  questions  had  been  settled 
by  the  people  at  the  late  Presidential  election,  and  thai  they  had  no  con- 
cessions to  make  or  offer." 

This  declaration,  made  under  the  most  solemn  circumstances, 
showed  conclusively  that  the  designs  of  the  party  of  Mr.  Lincoln, 
as  declared  in  the  Presidential  canvass,  were  to  be  carried  out,  and 
that  the  rights  of  the  Southern  States,  under  the  positive  provi- 
sions of  tho  Constitution,  were  to  be  trampled  under  foot,  and  that 
that  was  considered  as  settled  at  the  feallot  box. 


This  was  soon  followed  by  the  vote  on  the  resolutions  in  the 
Senate — when  every  Senator  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  party  voted  against 
them — and  by  the  action  of  the  Peace  Conference,  assembled  at  the 
instance  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  with  a  view,  if  possible,  to  render 
the  constitutional  rights  of  the  South  safe,  and  to  restore  harmony 
to  the  country. 

All  these  efforts,  on  the  part  of  the  Southern  States,  signally 
failed  to  obtain  from  the  party  of  Mr.  Lincoln  any  assurances  or 
guaranties  whatever  that  the  power  of  the  Government  would  not 
be  employed  to  consummate  the  schemes  of  violation  of  the  rights 
of  the  Southern  States,  proclaimed  by  his  party  during  the  Presi- 
dential canvass. 

Indeed,  the  tone  and  conduct  of  the  entire  party  clearly  mani- 
ested  that  they  considered  that  the  fat  had  gone  forth  from  the 
fallot  box  at  the  recent  election,  and  that  the  edict  only 
remained  to  be  executed.  They  announced  throughout  the  land 
"  t/ie  great  triumphal  inauguration  of  this  policy "  of  trampling 
under  foot  the  clearjand  unquestioned  rights  of  the  people  of  the 
slaveholding  States,  solemnly  guarantied  in  the  Constitution — 
recognised  by  the  whole  action  of  the  Legislative  and  Executive 
departments  of  the  Government  from  its  organization  ;  and  sanc- 
tioned by  repeated  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court— rights  of 
person  and  of  property,  indispensable  to  their  welfare  and  happi- 
ness. 

It  is  perfectly  plain  that  the  attempt  to  carry  out  this  policy 
would  have  been  a  revolution  of  the  Government,  by  the  prostra- 
tion of  the  Constitution ;  and  since  all  efforts  on  the  part  of  the 
Southern  States  to  prevent  this  course,  were  spurned  and  positive- 
ly(  rejected,  it  was  too  clear  to  admit  of  doubt,  that  the  policy  was 
to  be  pressed  to  its  most  oppressive  and  degrading  consumma- 
tion. 

It  was,  therefore,  just  and  proper  that  the  Southern  States  should 
act  upon  the  belief  that  Mr.  Lincoln  and  his  party  would  carry  out 
the  threats  and  pledges  which  brought  them  into  power,  and  which, 
when  called  upon,  they  had  solemnly  refused  to  disavow  ;  and  it 
was  wise  that  they  should  withdraw  from  the  Union,  before  he 
came  into  office,  if  they  thought  fit  to  do  so. 

How  well  iounded  these  anticipations  were,  was  not  long  left  in 
doubt,  after  his  installation. 

Determined  to  employ  all  the  power  of  the  Government  to 
coerce  the  seceded  States  into  submission  to  his  authority,  but  yet 
dreading  to  take  the  initiative  in  that  crusade,  the  policy  was  con- 
ceived of  throwing  the  responsibility  of  striking  the  first  blow 
in  the  war,  upon  the  South.  This  was  to  be  done,  by 
keeping  possession  of  certain  forts  held  by  the  United  States, 
within  the  limits  of  the  seceded  States,  so  as  to  compel  those  States 


37 

either  to  acquiesce  in  their  occupation  and  thereby  acknowledge 
the  authority  of  the  United  State?,  or  to  take  them  by  arras,  and 
incur  the  responsibility  of  commencing ,  hostilities.  Well  knowing 
that  the  latter  alternative  would  arise  in  case  they  continued  to 
claim  and  hold  these  forts,  they  resorted  to  this  trick  as  a  color 
for  saying,  that  the  war  had  been  forced  upon  them  by  the  arms  of 
the  seceded  States,  and  to  escape  the  odium  of  waging  war  upon 
the  States — -a  transparent  subterfuge,  the  fit  sequel  to  the  perfidy 
which  constrained  the  South  to  resort  to  force  ;  since  the  armed 
occupation  of  the  territory  of  a  seceded  State  was  itself  an  act  of 
war.  It  was  after  the  old  precedent  of  the  wolf  complaining  of 
the  lamb,  who  was  drinking  at  the. brook  below  him,  for  disturbing 
the. water  which  the  wolf  was  drinking  in  the  stream  above.  But 
it  answered  the  purpose  of  Mr.  Lincoln's  Government,  and  served 
as  a  pretext  for  clamor  to  enable  him  to  inflame  the  public  feeling 
and  to  summon  his  troops  to  the  field  to  commence  the  work  of  in- 
vasion and  subjugation  against  what  he  believed  to  be  a  weak  and 
powerless  people. 

In  violation  of  solemn  and  repeated  pledges  that  Fort  Sumter 
should  be  evacuated,  he  refused  to  comply  with  the  pledge,  and  com- 
pelled the  Confederate  Government  to  take  it  by  force.  Under  the 
pretext  of  this  provocation,  he  issued  his  proclamation  calling  for 
seventy-five  thousand  men,  to  invade  the  seceded  States — a  palpa- 
ble usurpation  of  power,  without  color  of  authority  under  the  Con- 
stitution or  laws  of  the  United  States,  which  aroused  Virginia, 
North  Carolina,  Tennessee  and  Arkansas  from  their  lethargy, 
and  compelled  them,  for  the  protection  of  their  rights  and  honor, 
to  follow  the  course  of  the  seven  preceding  States,  and  to 
secede. 

This  first  act  of  the  Government  of  Mr.  Lincoln  has  been  rapid- 
ly followed  up  by  the  most  startling  usurpations  of  power.  It  is 
not  the  purpose  of  these  remarks  to  enuuierate  these  outrages,  or 
to  dwell  upon  their  enormity.  Only  the  most  solemn  and  delibe- 
rately perpetrated  of  them  will  be  referred  to,  as  showing  that  the 
fulfilment  has  far  exceeded  the  wildest  apprehensions  of  the  friends 
of  American  institutions,  and  that  the  renowned  American  Union 
has  been  transformed  into  a  despotism,  the  most  abject  and  de- 
graded. 

1.  The  right  of  personal  liberty,  guarantied  by  the  Constitution, 
and  placed  by  it  beyond  the  touch  of  any  or  all  of  the  departments  of  the 
Government,  is  struck  down — a  private  citizen  of  the  State  of 
Maryland,  without  process  and  without  notice  of  the  the  charge  against 
him,  is  seized  by  military  authority,  for  an  alleged  civil  offense,  and 
hurried  to  confinement  in  a  fortress  of  the  United  States,  in  viola- 
tion of  the  5th  and  6th  amended  Articles  of  the  Constitution. 
This  case  of  Merryman  has  been  followed  by  numberless  others  of 


the  same  character,  where  citizens  of  States  not  seceded,  have  been 
immured  in  fortresses  of  the  United  States  for  more  than  a  year, 
deprived  of  the  comforts  of  life,  and  to  the  great  peril  ©f  their 
health  and  even  their  lives,  from  disease  and  confinement — 
without  warrant — -without  legal  notice  of  the  charges  against  them 
— and  all  this  time  denied  their  constitutional  right  to  be  proceeded 
against  by  indictment  or  presentment,  to  be  confronted  with  the 
witnesses  against  them,  and  to  have  a  speedy  trial — rights  given  to 
them  by  amended  Articles  five  and  six  of  the  Constitution. 

2.  Upon  the  writ  of  Habeas  Corpus  granted  by  the  Chief 
Justice  of  the  United  States,  in  the  case  of  Merryman,  the  party 
imprisoned  was  refused  to  be  brought  before  that  Judge,  under 
orders  from  Mr.  Lincoln's  Government,  claiming  and  exercising  the 
right  to  suspend  the  writ  of  Habeas  Corpus  ;  thereby  usurping  the 
power  given  to  Congress  alone  by  the  Constitution.  And  this 
usurpation  was  persisted  in  and  practiced  after  the  decision  of  the 
Chief  Justice,  that  the  power  assumed  by  the  Government  was 
illegal  and  a  violation  of  the  Constitution.  It  may  safely  be  said 
that  no  King  of  England  could  have  dared  to  commit  these  acts, 
under  any  circumstances,  without  the  loss  of  his  head. 

3.  He  struck  down  the  right  of  freedom  of  speech  and  of  per- 
sonal liberty  at  one  blow,  in  seizing  and  committing  to  his  Bastiles 
numerous  private  citizens  of  the  State  of  Maryland,  and  of  other 
States,  still  members  of  the  Union  ;  whose  only  offense  was  the  ex- 
ercise of  the  right  of  an  American  citizen — never  questioned  since 
the  date  of  the  unconstitutional  sedition  law  of  1798 — to  declare 
their  opposition  to  the  unconstitutional  acts  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  and 
in  peaceably  discussing  them.  He  has  suppressed  many  news- 
paper presses  in  various  parts  of  the  States,  still  continuing  in  the 
Union,  and  committed  their  editors  to  prison  in  distant  forts 
— and  all  this  in  flagrant  violation  of  the  prohibitions  of  the  first 
.Amendment  to  the  Constitution,  denying  such  powers  even  to 
Congress. 

4.  By  armed  soldiery,  he  prevented  the  assemblage  of  the  Legis- 
lature of  Maryland  according  to  her  Constitution  and  laws — seized 
a  large  number  of  its  members  and  committed  them  to  close  and 
uncomfortable  imprisonment  in  distant  forts,  and  dispersed  the 
residue  by  force — thereby  suppressing  the  regular  Legislative 
authority  of  the  State,  then  fully  in  the  Union  j  because  he  feared 
that  the  Legislature  would  declare  their  opposition  to  his  usurpa- 
tions and  take  steps  to  protect  the  rights  of  the  people  of  the 
State  against  his  oppressions  •  an  outrage  upon  free  government, 
without  a  parallel  in  the  history  of  governments  claiming  to  be 
free. 

5.  By  his  armed  soldiers,  he  seized  at  the  hour  of  midnight  and 
dragged  from  their  beds  and  families,  without  process  and  without 


notice  of  any  offense,  the  Mayor,  Marshal  and  Commissioners  of 
Police  of  the  city  of  Baltimore,  quiet,  unoffending  citizens  of  high 
character,  upon  no  other  ground  than  that  they  would  not  yield 
obedience  to  his  edicts  in  derogation  of  their  rightful  authority 
under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  State,  and  because  they 
were  suspected  of  being  opposed  to  his  unconstitutional  acts — 
thus  deposing  the  regular  municipal  authority  of  the  city.  And 
these  officers  have  been  imprisoned  in  a  distant  fortress,  for  about 
eighteen  months  ;  without  legal  notice  of  the  nature  and  cause  of  accusa- 
tion against  them;  without  indictment  or  presentment;  denied  of 
their  right  to  have  a  speedy  trial  by  a  jury  of  the  State  where  the 
offense  is  pretended  to  have  been  committed — sacred  rights,  posi- 
tively guarantied  by  the  5th  and  6th  Amendments  to  the  Constitu- 
tion. These  outrages  find  their  parallel  only  in  the  vilest  acts  of 
the  Jacobins  of  1793. 

,  6.  "  The  State  Governments  are  constituent  and  essential  parts 
of  the  Federal  Government,"  says  Mr.  Madison  in  Federalist, 
No.  45. 

But  the  armed  forces  of  Mr.  Lincoln,  under  his  authority,  have 
driven  the  duly  constituted  State  officers  from  the  seats  of  Gov- 
ernment of  several  of  the  Southern  States,  thereby  deposing  the 
regular  State  Governments  elected  by  the  people,  which,  in  legal 
effect,  is  an  abdication  of  the  authority  of  the  United  States,  since  it 
necessarily  excludes  such  States  from  the  Union.  And  not  content 
with  this  act  of  suicide  to  the  Union,  as  to  those  States,  he 
has  appointed  Governors  for  themx  and  surrounded  them  with  armed 
forces  to  suppress  the  laws  of  the  State,  and  to  execute  over  the  people 
laws  of  his  own  dictation,  at  the  will  of  his  military  commanders, 
in  utter  violation  of  the  rights  of  person  and  of  property  of  the 
citizens  under  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  State,  recognised 
and  guarantied  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

He  has  committed  the  same  outrage  upon  all  justice  and  right,  in 
deposing  the  municipal  authorities  of  cities  overrun  by  his  forces, 
setting  aside  the  laws  governing  them,  and  superseding  them  by 
officers  elected  under  military  duress  by  his  own  subjects,  in  viola- 
tion of  the  Constitution  and  of  their  charters. 

7.  He  has  violated  the  liberty  of  conscience  and  desecrated  the 
sanctuaries  of  God,  by  disturbing  worshipping  assemblies'  in 
churches,  seizing  clergymen  in  the  performance  of  their  sacred  func- 
tions, imprisoning  them  in  jails,  penitentiaries  and  distant  forts, 
because  they  would  not  offer  prayers  to  the  Almighty  for  the 
success  and  prosperity  of  the  Government  engaged  in  the  work  of 
invading  and  plundering  the  Southern  States,  and  murdering  their 
people— thus  violating  the  first  and  fifth  Amendments  to  the  Con- 
stitution. 

8.  He  has  seized  and  -  attempted  to    confiscate  the  property  of 


40     • 

private  citizens  in  the  Southern  States,  not  bearing  arms,  nor 
indicted  or  convicted  of  any  crime  against  the  United  States,  in 
violation  of  the  Constitution.  Claiming  that  these  States  are  still 
members  of  the  Union,  he  has  yet  waged  a  war  of  rapine  and  de- 
struction against  the  property  of  their  people  indiscriminately, 
whether  belonging  to  those  chargeable  with  acts  of  resistance  to 
his  Government,  or  not.  He  has  seduced  slaves  from  their  masters 
and  placed  arms  in  their  hands,  enabling  them  to  commit  murder 
and  plunder,  and  has  enlisted  many  of  them  as  soldiers  in  his 
armies.  With  fire  and  sword,  he  has  laid  waste  whole  sections  of 
country,  regardless  of  age,  sex  or  condition,  in  violation  alike  of 
the  feelings  of  humanity,  and  of  the  laws  of  civilized  war ;  and 
now  claims  whenever  •  he  has  the  power,  to  strip  our  people  of 
all  their  substance,  and  to  deprive  them  of  all  their  rights  under 
the  Constitution — thus  rendering  it  impossible  to  restore  to  the 
Union  those  States,  except  their  people  are  disfranchised,  degraded 
and  stripped  of  all  property  ;  the  necessary  effect  of  which  would 
be  either  to  desolate  these  States,  or  to  fill  them  with  an  imported 
people,  their  proper  citizens  being  degraded,  stripped  of  every  right 
of  person  and  of  property,  and  under  the  ban  of  imported  masters 
or  perhaps  of  their  own  slaves.  His  Government  stands  forth  the 
enemy  alike  of  the  Union,  and  of  the  human  race. 

9.  His  Government  has  admitted  into  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States  persons  appointed  as  Senators  by  a  usurped  Government  of 
a  part  of  the  State  of  Virginia,  formed  in  palpable  violation  of  the 
Constitution  and  laws  of  that  State,  against  the  right  of  the  regu- 
larly elected  and  constituted  Governmental  departments  of  that 
State,  then  in  office  and  confessedly  the  legitimate  authorities  of  the 
State,  under  her  Constitution  and  laws — thereby  not  only  sanction- 
ing a  flagrant  rebellion  and  usurpation,  but  virtually  "forming  a 
new  State  within  the  jurisdiction  of  another  State,  without  the  consent 
of  the  Legislature  "  of  that  State — in  violation  of  the  prohibition 
of  the  third  section  of  the  fourth  Article  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

10.  He  has  usurped  the  power  to  declare  martial  law,  by  his  pro- 
clamation of  September.  1862.  In  violation  of  ti;e  positive  prohi- 
bitions of  the  fifth  Amended  Article  of  the  Constitution — "  that  no 
person  shall  be  held  to  answer  for  a  capital  or  otherwise  infamous 
crime,  unless  on  a  presentment  or  indictment  of  a  grand  jury,  ex- 
cept in  cases  arising  in  the  land  and  naval  forces,  or  in  the  militia, 
when  in  actual  service  in  time  of  war  or  public  danger  " — he  has 
ordained,  that  all  persons  discouraging  volunteer  enlistments, 
resisting  militia  drafts,  or  guilty  of  any  disloyal  practice,  affording 
aid  and  comfort  to  the  rebels  against  the  authority  of  the  United 
States,  shall  be  subject  to  martial  law,  and  liable  to  trial  and  pun- 
ishment by  Court  martial  or  military  commission. 


41 

Now  the:  Constitution  expressly  prohibits  any  person  not  be- 
longing to  "  the  land  or  naval  forces  or  the  militia,"  &c,  to  be 
held  to  answer  for  any  crime  unless  on  a  presentment  or  indictment 
of  f  grdnd  jury.  AIL  the  .combined  departments  .  of  the  Federal 
Government,  had  no  power  to  subject  such  persons  to  trial  in  any 
other  mode.  And  yet  this  sacred  and  venerated  right  is  struck 
down  by  the  edict  of  Abraham* Lincoln;  and  the  private  citizen  is 
subjected  to  the  extraordinary  proceeding  of  a  court  martial  or 
"military  commission,"  to  be  appointed  by  the  powers  which  send 
forth  this  edict — deprived  of  the  right  of  trial  by  jury* — in  the 
State  where  the  alleged  offense  was  committed — of  being  confronted 
by  the  witnesses  against  him — -of  process  to  compel  the  attendance 
of  witnesses  in  his  behalf — (rights  also  positively  seeured  to  him 
by  the  6th  Amendment  of  the  Constitution)— -deprived  of  the  pro- 
cess of  appeal  or  writ  of  error  to  the  Court  provided  by  the  Con- 
stitution to  determine  his  rights  and  to  settle  whether  the  edict 
under  which  he  is  impaled,  is  valid  and  constitutional.  The 
annals  of  usurpation  and  tyranny  in  modern  times  may  be 
sear clhed  in. vain  for  1^he  parallel  of  this  reckless  and  wicked  out- 
rage,upon  a  sacred  and  firmly  guarantied  right  of  the  citizen,  and 
upon/  the  prohibitions  of  the  Constitution  which  he.  had  sworn  to 
support.  Nothing  could  exceed  it  but  the  tortures  of  the  Inqui- 
sition* •      • 

ll; ■'  '  The  last  act  that  will  be  here  referred  to,  is  the  Proclama- 
tion declaring!  that  after  the  first  of  January,  1863,  all  slaves, 
within  any  State  whose  people  shall  be  in  rebellion  against  the 
United. States,  shall  be  forever  free;  and  that  the  Executive  Gov- 
ernment of  the <>  United  States,  naval  and  military,  will  maintain 
their  freedom,  and  will  tfo  no  act  to  repress  them  in  any  efforts 
they  may  make  for, tlyeir  freedom,. 

This  edict,  if  effectual  for  the  object  intended,  would  at  once  an- 
nihilate a  large  part  of  the  property  of  the  people  composing  the 
Southern  States,  the  right  to  which  is  expressly  recognised  by  the 
Constitution.  It  would  annihilate  with  it  the  main  business,  pur- 
suits, property,  wealth  and  social  institutions  dependant  on  that 
species,  of  property  in  those  States  anjl  reduce  their  people  to  ruin 
and, tjheir.  country  to  desolation.  It  would  raise  a  servile  war  of 
ex^erminatjoij  either  of  the  white,,  or.  of  the  slave,  population, 
producing  scenes, ,  which  no  mind,  but  that  of  a  fiend  in  human 
form,  can  .contemplate  without  the  deepest  horror.  Yet  this  vile, 
and  flagitious  .  manifesto  regards  thes,e}  scenes  with  encouragement, 
and  promises  to  "maintain  the  freedom  of  such  slaves,"  by  the 
whole  power  of  the  Government,  and  to  "  do  no  act  to  repress 
them  in  any  efforts  they  may  make  for  freedom."     After  inciting 


42 

them  to  these  horror?,  their  authors  are  to  do  no  act  to  repress 
them  in  their  efforts  for  freedom,  however  revolting  to  humanity ! 
Well  may  this  atrocious  act  call  forth,  as  it  has  done,  the  execra- 
tions of  the  civilized  world  against  the  monster  who  has  pro- 
claimed it. 

But  its  gross  usurpation  and  hase  purpose  are  not  more  striking 
than  its  shameless  violation  of  the  declarations  that  Mr.  Lincoln 
has  made  from  the  date  of  his  inauguration  to  the  time  of  his 
proclamation,  in  relation  to  interfering  with  slavery  in  the  States. 

In  his  inaugural  address,  he  says — "  I  have  no  purpose  directly 
"  or  indirectly  to  interfere  with  the  institution  of  slavery  in  the 
"  States.  I  believe  I  have  no  right  to  do  so,  and  I  have  no  incli- 
"  nation  to  do  so." 

In  the  interview  held  by  him  with  certain  border  State  members 
of  Congress,  on  the  10th  March,  1862,  relative  to  his  proposition 
to  emancipate  the  slaves  on  their  receiving  compensation  from  the 
Federal  Government,  he  says — 

"  That  emancipation  was  a  subject  exclusively  under  the  control 
u  of  the  States,  and  must  be  adopted  or  rejected  by  each  for 
"  itself — that  he  did  not  claim,  nor  had  this  Government  any  right 
"  to  coerce  them  for  that  purpose." — Mr.  Menzies,  of  Kentucky,  en- 
"  quired  if  the  President  thought  there  was  any  power,  except  in 
"  the  States  themselves,  to  carry  out  this  scheme  of  emancipa- 
tion.    The  President  replied  he  thought  there  could  not  be." 

In  an  interview  with  an  embassy  of  clergymen  from  Chicago, 
shortly  before^the  date  of  this  proclamation,  he  declared  that  the 
emancipation  of  slaves  in  the  States,  was  impracticable,  wild  and 
inexpedient,  and  expressed  his  determination  not  to  attempt  it. 

In  his  veto  to  the  Confiscation  and  Emancipation  bill  in  July 
1862,  he  says*  "It  is  startling  to  say  that  Congress  can  free  a 
slave  within  a  State."  If  the  Legislative  department  of  the  Gov- 
ernment could  not  do  the  act,  how  much  more  startling  is  it,  that 
the  Executive  should  usurp  so  tremendous  a  power?  Yet,  not- 
withstanding all  this,  this  act  is  but  the  fulfilment  of  the  pledges 
and  principles  which  caused  his  election. 

Thus  it  appears  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  has 
been  completely  set  at  naught,  and  the  most  despotic  powers 
usurped  by  those  holding  the  Government,  not  only  without  au- 
thority granted,  but  in  violation  of  positive  prohibitions ;  and  in 
most  of  these  acts,  the  usurpation  stands  confessed  by  its  authors.  If 
there  was  virtue  enough  in  Congress  to  impeach  him  for  usurpa- 
tion, he  could  be  convicted  by  his  own  recorded  admissions,  of 
wilful  violations  bf  his  oath  to  support  the  Constitution,  in  re- 
peated instances. 


4S 

And  now  what  is  the  justification  or  palliation  for  these  high 
crimes  ?  It  is  the  old  plea  of  tyrants — necessity — that  the  powers, 
conferred  upon  the  Government  by  the  Constitution  were  insuf- 
ficient to  suppress  the  alleged  rebellion ;  consisting  in  the  with- 
drawal of  eleven  Sovereign  States,  in  the  most  solemn  form 
known  to  political  action,  and  with  great  and  acknowledged  una- 
nimity, from  a  Union  which  was  to  be  perverted  to  the  destruc- 
tion of  all  their  rights  under  the  Constitution,  and  in  forming  a 
new  and  independent  government  of  their  own  choice  among  them- 
selves ;  not,  in  any  wise,  interfering  with  the  rights  of  the  remain- 
ing States — and,  therefore,  that  it  was  necessary  for  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  remaining  United  States,  to  violate  the  Constitution 
and  assume  the  powers  of  a  dictatorship,  in  order  to  preserve  the 
Constitution  and  to  restore  the  dismembered  Union ! 

If  such  a  necessity  could  exist,  it  would  seem  to  furnish  the 
most  unanswerable  reason  why  the  Government  could  not  make 
war  upon  the  seceded  States,  without  converting  itself  into  a  des- 
potism. For  it  would  be  the  height  of  absurdity  and  wickedness, 
to  attempt  to  restore  the  Union,  by  war  against  the  seceded 
States,  when  this  plea  of  necessity  confesses  that,  in  order  to 
make  the  effort  successful,  it  was  necessary  to  destroy  their  State 
and  municipal  governments  ;  to  rob  the  people  of  all  their  proper- 
ty ;  to  deprive  them  of  all  their  rights  under  their  State  govern* 
ments*;  in  fact,  to  annihiliate  their  political  existence,  as  the  peo- 
ple of  the  States,  and  to  render  it  impossible  to  restore  the  Union, 
with  the  rights  and  privileges  of  the  States  preserved ;  and  to  do 
all  this  by  the  prostration  of  the  most  solemn  guaranties  of  the 
Constitution.  . 

But  it  is  preposterous  to  say  that  the  Union,  which  rests  solely 
on  the  Constitution,  can  be  preserved  by  violating  the  fundamen- 
tal principles  of  that  Great  Charter  of  the  Union.  The  idea  is 
stupidly  and  insultingly  absurd,  that  any  necessity  can  justify  the 
violation  of  the  law  of  its  existence  in  order  to  maintain  its  exis- 
tence. As  well  might  we  talk  of  undermining  a  foundation,  for 
the  purpose  of  preserving  its  superstructure  ;  or  of  a  man's  stab- 
bing himself  to  the  heart,  to  preserve  his  constitution.  The  dis- 
guise is  too  transparent  to  deceive  any  but  those  who  wickedly 
shut  their  eyes  to  the  truth. 

It  is  the  will  and  not  any  proper  necessity,  that  has  produced 
these  acts.  It  is  the  death  struggle  for  the  consummation  of  the 
long-foreshadowed  and  long-deferred  hopes  of  power  and  plunder 
to  be  visited  upon  the  South,  rendered  desperate  by  the  fear  that 
these  sordid  schemes  were,  at  last,  about  to  be  disappointed  and 
blasted   forever,   when  fruition  seemed  to' -be.  within  their  very 


44 

grasp ;  it  is  the  necessity  for  the  perpetration  of  the  unholy  ends 
of  avarice  and  abolitionism  against  the  South,  which  were 
thwarted  by  her  withdrawal  beyond  the  power  of  her  'Oppressors  : 
these  are  the  causes  which  have  brought  to  light  this  profound 
love  for  the  Union,  and  this  amazing  devotion  to 'the  Constitution! 

And  now  the  astounding  development  stands  forth  from  the 
grand  oriflamme  of  Abolitionism  at  Washington— that  the  South- 
ern States  were  not  to  be  allowed  to  enjoy  their  solemnly  guarantied 
rights  in  the  Union,  nor  suffered  to  enjoy  them  by  withdrawing 
from  the  Union —  ,  i 

That  it  was  settled  that  property  in  slaves  was  to  be  abolished, 
if  the  Southern  States  had  remained  in  the  Union ;  but  since 
they  have  been  compelled  to  withdraw  from  the  Union  to  protect 
their  rights,  slavery  is  now  to  be  abolished,  because  they  seceded.' 
and  thus  the  necessity  which  the  wrong  of  the  oppressors  forced 
upon  them,  is  made  the  justification  for  the  outrage  intended 
against  them  from  the  first,  and  now  boldly  proclaimed-— 

That  the  people  of  these  States  must  either  submit,  in  the'Union, 
to  be  robbed  of  all  their  most  sacred  rights  secured  by  the  Consti- 
tution, or  be  visited,  if  they  withdraw  from  the  Union*  with  fire  and 
sword,  with  plunder  and  murder,  their  own  slaves  armedfand  in- 
cited to  the  most  horrid  deeds  of  destruction  and  brutality  against 
all  ages,  sexes  and  conditions  of  the  white  race,  because  these 
people  were  driven,  for  the  necessary  protection  of  their  dearest 
rights,  to  withdraw  from  the  grasp  of  the  usurper  and  tyrant— 

That  the  people  of  these  States  are  to  be  deprived  of  every 
right,  and  despoiled  of  all  their  substance,  reduced  to  penury  and 
degradation,  with  imported  masters  from  the  hordes  of  their 
enemies  to  seize  their  property,  with  Vandal  rapacity,  under  des- 
potic edicts,  and  to  control  the  public  acts  and  destinies  of  these 
States ;  thereby  at  once  annihilating  all  the  rights  of  persons  an4 
of  property  in  these  States,  destroying  the  State  Governments,,  and 
reducing  them  to  dependencies  of  the  despotism,  which  grinds 
them  under  its  iron  heel — and  all  this  in  the  name  of  the^Union, 
and  for  the  sake  of  the  Constitution  ! 

These  designs,  at  first  disguised,  now  stand  out ,  in'^all  itheir 
horrors,  openly  avowed  under  the  pretext  of  necessity ;  and  now 
the  contest  waged  by  Abraham  Lincoln  against  the  Confederate 
States,  exhibits  an  open  and  undisguised  struggle  between  Consti- 
tutional government,  civil  and  religious  liberty,  good  faith  and 
justice,  on  the  one  side  5  and  tyranny,  fanaticism,  robbery  and  Red 
Republicanism,  on  the  other.  In  such  a  Contest,  surely  the  South 
had  ho  course  but  resistance  to  the  oppressions,  by  all  the  means 
which  G-od  and  nature  have  placed  in  her  hands. 

Nero  set  fire  to  the  ancient  edifices' of  Rome,  as  unsuited  to  his 


4.5 

times  and  taste,  destroying  those  monuments  of  her  antiquity  and 
grandeur,  together  with  the  memorials  of  her  victories,  in  a  com- 
mon conflagration  ;  and  Abraham  Lincoln  has  laid  his  impious 
hand  upon  the  Constitution,  the  bulwark  of  our  liberties  and  the 
chief  monument  of  our  national  glory,  as  unsuited  to  his  political 
ideas  and  unfit  for  the  purposes  of  his  myrmidons.  It  must  over- 
whelm the  heart  of  every  true  American  patriot,  with  unutterable 
shame  and  sorrow,  that  such  should  be  the  end  of  the  once  glorious 
Union  erected  by  the  patriots  and  sages  of  the  Revolution — re- 
duced to  ruin  by  profligate  men,  incapable  of  good,  yet  potent  for 
evil,  in  tearing  down  the  pillars  which  supported  the  noble  struc- 
ture ;  and  that  all  that  now  remains  of  it  is,  a  miserable  wreck — 
the  terror  of  its  adherents,  and  the  scorn  of  its  enemies ;  the 
scourge  of  this  country,  and  the  contempt  of  the  civilized  world. 
October,  1862. 


' 


•^ 


■  ■ 


